SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

STAFF REPORT 

Rule 202 – NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214 – FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 215 – AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND 

NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Prepared by: Marc Cooley 

Associate Air Quality Engineer

Reviewed by: Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

Aleta Kennard 

Program Supervisor

Approved by: Brigette Tollstrup 

Division Manager
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 2 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The District is currently designated as a nonattainment area for both state and federal ozone, PM101

and PM2.52 standards. A strategy to control air pollution is to reduce emissions from new and 

modified stationary sources through a New Source Review (NSR) program. The federal Clean Air Act 

and its associated regulations contain NSR requirements for major stationary sources and major 

modifications including the recent addition of PM2.5 as a regulated pollutant. Similarly, the California 

Clean Air Act sets requirement to offset the impact of new sources. Under the California Health and 

Safety Code (HSC) and California Code of Regulations, the District is required to establish a no net 

increase program for emissions of nonattainment pollutants from all new or modified stationary 

sources which emit, or have the potential to emit, 10 tons or more per year. 

Rule 202 was first adopted on September 20, 1976, and was last amended in 2005. The New Source 

Review (NSR) rule adopted into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is the NSR Rule 202 as adopted November 20, 1984. Rule 215 was 

adopted on August 24, 2006 to govern agricultural sources. 

In addition to the changes needed to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for permitting new and 

modified sources in severe ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas, amendments to Rule 202 must 

conform to the requirements of SB288, the Protect California Air Act of 2003. This California law, 

discussed in more detail later in this paper, prevents the District from adopting NSR requirements less 

stringent than the “new source review rules that existed on December 30, 20023

” and specifies that 

the rule for comparison as: 

“those new source review rules and regulations for both nonattainment and prevention of 

significant deterioration for new, modified, repaired, or replaced sources that have been 

adopted by the district governing board on or prior to December 30, 2002, that have been 

submitted to the EPA by the state board for inclusion into the SIP and are pending approval or 

have been approved by the EPA4

.” 

The proposed revisions to Rule 202 will contain the most stringent of state or federal laws and 

regulations, and apply to both major and minor sources. The revisions are intended to: 

1. Meet severe ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment area requirements – Meet federal CAA 

NSR requirements generally described in Appendix S to 40 CFR Part 51. 

2. Meet the requirements of Clean Air Act Sections 110(l) and 1935

 – These sections prohibit 

changes to the State Implementation Plan that interfere with attainment or progress goals 

or make other modifications that do not provide equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions. In general, these requirements can be met by avoiding changes to the 

proposed NSR rule that are less stringent than the SIP approved NSR rule (adopted 

November 20, 1984.) The SIP approved Rule 202 is intended to be removed from the SIP 

and replaced with proposed Rule 214 and a later submittal of a new Rule 203 - Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration. Current Rule 202 has some provisions that are less stringent 

 

1

 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 

40, Part 50.6. 

2

 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less, Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 40, Part 50.7. 

3

 California Health and Safety Code § 42504(a) 

4

 California Health and Safety Code § 42505 

5

 42 USC 7410(l) and 42 USC 7515
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 3 

than the 1984 SIP rule, therefore, the proposed rule will include revisions that match or 

are equivalent to the 1984 rule requirements. 

3. Meet state regulations for transport mitigation – The transport mitigation requirements for 

Sacramento contained in the California Code of Regulations. These requirements in the 

current rule will be maintained. 

4. Meet the requirements of SB288 – State law prohibits the NSR rule from containing

certain requirements that are less stringent than the NSR rule submitted as of December 

30, 2002, that was the 1991 NSR rule. Some of the current rule provisions are less 

stringent than the 1991 rule, therefore, the proposed rule will also include revisions that 

match or are equivalent to the 1991 rule. 

 As noted above, only those requirements noted in items 1 and 2 above are required by federal law to 

be submitted as a revision to the SIP. Therefore, a proposed new, separate rule, Rule 214 – 

FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW, will be submitted as a SIP revision that contains the 

requirements necessary to satisfy federal laws and regulations, and omit provisions required by more 

stringent state laws noted in items 3 and 4 above. Requirements necessary to meet items 3 and 4 

above are proposed to be included in Rule 202. It is our intention that Rule 214 is written such that the 

review of major stationary sources (including both non-major and major modifications) complying with 

proposed Rule 202 will also be in compliance with Rule 214. Major sources are cautioned that 

because they are subject to both state and federal laws, that both Rules 202 and 214 apply. 

However, Clean Air Act requirements related to EPA enforcement and citizen lawsuits only pertain to 

major source requirements in Rule 214. 

Additionally as part of the rule package, Rule 213 – FEDERAL MAJOR MODIFICATIONS will be 

rescinded and Rule 215 will be amended. The requirements of Rule 213 are added to the proposed 

language of Rule 202 and Rule 214. Rule 215 will be amended to clarify Rule 214 applies in addition 

to Rule 202. 

BACKGROUND

The proposed rules provide for the review of new and modified stationary air pollution sources and 

provide mechanisms, including emissions offsets and air pollution controls, by which Authorities to 

Construct for such sources may be granted without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of 

health-based ambient air quality standards. Rule 202 sets requirements for reviewing permit 

applications for new and modified sources for Best Available Control Technology (BACT), emission 

offsets, emission calculation procedures and other administrative requirements. Rule 214, Federal 

New Source Review, is proposed to incorporate those sections of Rule 202 that apply to major 

sources for inclusion into the State Implementation Plan (SIP.) 

Rule 202 was first adopted on September 20, 1976 and was amended in 1979, 1983, 1984, 1991, 

1996, and last amended on February 24, 2005. The District submitted Rule 202 as adopted February 

26, 1991 to the EPA for approval into the SIP. The District was reclassified to severe nonattainment 

for ozone effective June 1, 1995. The 1991 version of Rule 202 did not meet Clean Air Act 

requirements for severe nonattainment areas. Consequently EPA has not taken action on the 

submitted 1991 version of Rule 202. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 4 

HEALTH IMPACTS 

Ground level ozone is a secondary pollutant formed from photochemical reactions of NOx and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Ozone is a strong irritant that adversely 

affects human health and damages crops and other environmental resources. As documented by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the most recent Criteria Document for ozone (U.S. 

EPA 2006), both short-term and long-term exposure to ozone can irritate and damage the human 

respiratory system, resulting in: 

• decreased lung function; 

• development and aggravation of asthma; 

• increased risk of cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and strokes; 

• increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits; and 

• premature deaths. 

According to the U.S. EPA, health studies have linked exposure to particulate matter, especially fine 

particles, to several significant health problems, including: 

• increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty 

breathing; 

• decreased lung function; 

• aggravated asthma; 

• development of chronic bronchitis; 

• irregular heartbeat; 

• nonfatal heart attacks; and 

• premature death in people with heart or lung disease. 

Exposure to PM pollution can cause coughing, wheezing, and decreased lung function even in 

otherwise healthy children and adults. EPA estimates that thousands of elderly people die 

prematurely each year from exposure to fine particles. In addition, a recent study (Dominici et. al, 

2006) of the correlation between PM2.5 concentrations and hospital admission rates concluded that 

short-term exposure to PM2.5 increases the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular and respiratory 

diseases. 

LEGAL MANDATES 

Federal Clean Air Act requirements (general): The Clean Air Act6 requires state implementation plans 

to include provisions to "...require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major

stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area7..." Sacramento County is nonattainment for 

federal ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. 

NSR Ozone Reclassification Requirements: The District’s reclassification request from “serious” to 

“severe-15” for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is effective June 4, 20108. EPA established deadline 

 

6

 Including Sections 110(a)(2)C), 172(c)(5), 173, and 182(d)(2), at 42 USC 7410(a)(2)(C), 7502(c)(5), 7503, 

and 7511a(d)(2) respectively. 

7

 42 USC 7502(c)(5) 

8 “Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 5 

of June 4, 2011 for submittal of revisions to the SIP to meet the NSR requirements of a “severe-15” 

area. Proposed Rule 214 is intended to satisfy the NSR requirements for a severe-15 ozone area. 

U.S. EPA Consent Decree to satisfy Clean Air Act: The District has also received notice of an EPA 

Consent Decree to address a lawsuit filed by WildEarth Guardians in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California9. The Consent Decree sets a timeline of May 10, 2011, for the 

EPA to either approve a NSR rule that addresses both the 1997 NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5, 

promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) or some combination. The District must satisfy NSR 

requirements and submit to California Air Resources Board (ARB) and EPA well in advance of May 

10, 2011 or EPA could either approve in part the 1991 rule and/or promulgate NSR requirements for 

Sacramento County. If EPA promulgates a FIP, then EPA region 9 would become the federal NSR 

permitting authority for Sacramento County. 

U.S. EPA Comments and Approvability Issues: The District received written U.S. EPA comments on 

SIP approvability of earlier versions of Rule 202 identifying the following necessary changes10. These 

issues will also be addressed in the proposed rules: 

• Eliminate exemptions for temporary and emergency equipment at major sources 

• Define replacement equipment 

• Clarify Historic Potential Emissions 

In addition, the District has received verbal comments on the applicability of the emergency 

equipment exemption for multiple units at a source that otherwise would be a major stationary source. 

Federal PM2.5 NSR Requirements: Sacramento was recently designated as a federal PM2.5 

nonattainment area for the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards11. EPA has issued a 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule12 to interpret CAA requirements as they pertain to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards. Pursuant to CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C)13 and EPA’s Implementation Rule14, 

PM2.5 NSR requirements apply to both major and minor sources effective December 14, 2009. The 

Implementation Rule also included; offset trigger levels, offset ratios, and defining the emissions 

levels that constitute "major source" and "major modification". The proposed rules match the offset

ratios for direct PM2.5 emissions to those of PM10. The proposed offset ratios meet EPA’s 

requirements of at least 1.0 to 1.015. In addition, the proposed rule matches EPA requirements that all 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor offsets must be obtained within the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment 

 

Basin, Coachella Valley, and Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Reclassification”, 

Federal Register 75 (May 5, 2010) p. 24409 

9

 WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson No. 4:09-CV-02453-CW (N.D. CA) “Proposed Consent Decree, Clean 

Air Act Citizen Suit”, Federal Register 74 (December 7, 2009) p. 64076

10 U.S. EPA Comments for Rule 202 dated March 4, 1996, October 28, 1996 and August 14, 2000. 

11 “Air Quality Designations for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 

Final Rule”, Federal Register 74 (November 13, 2009) p. 58688 

12 “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5), Final Rule”, Federal Register 73 (May 16, 2008) p. 28321 

13 42 USC 7410(a)(2)(c) 

14 Effective upon nonattainment designation, “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5), Final Rule”, Federal Register 73 (May 16, 2008) p. 

28324 

15 “Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5), Final Rule”, Federal Register 73 (May 16, 2008) p. 28321 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 6 

Area for PM2.516

. 

Chapter 4.5 Protect California Air Act 2003 / SB288 Requirements: On December 21, 2002, the U.S. 

EPA promulgated regulations that substantially weakened the basic federal new source review 

program (67 Fed. Reg. 80186-80289) (Dec. 31, 2002)). In an effort to minimize the impact of this 

regulation, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 288, the Protect California Air Act of 2003 (SB288), 

starting with HSC Section 42500. The Act is intended to minimize the impact of the relaxation of the 

federal new source review program on air quality in California. 

SB288 requires that a district’s NSR program cannot be relaxed from the NSR rule that had been 

adopted by the district governing board on or prior to December 30, 2002, and that had been 

submitted to the EPA by the state board for inclusion into the SIP17. ARB’s website18 indicates that 

the February 26, 1991 version of Rule 202 is the District’s NSR baseline rule for SB288. The 

requirements of SB28819 prevent the District from amending Rule 202 to be less stringent than the 

baseline rule. Amendments or revisions cannot exempt, relax or reduce the obligations of a stationary

source for any of the requirements listed below: 

• Applicability determination for NSR 

• Definition of modification, major modification, routine maintenance, or replacement 

• Calculation methodology, thresholds or other procedures of NSR 

• Any definitions or requirements of the NSR regulations 

• Any requirements to obtain NSR or other Permits to construct 

• Any requirements for BACT, Air Quality Impact Analysis, recordkeeping or public participation 

• Any requirements for regulating any air pollutant covered by the NSR rules and regulations 

Of particular concern for the proposed amendments, BACT requirements cannot be changed from the 

requirements that existed prior but offsets can be changed so long as the overall offset requirements 

are not less stringent. 

BACT: Proposed rule language requires BACT for any emission increase. The currently adopted rule 

requires BACT only if the emissions increase from an emissions unit meets or exceeds 10 lbs/day. In 

addition, Section 204.2 allows for a determination of the overall effect of a BACT determination. This 

is used in circumstances such as control devices where there is a restrictive control on one pollutant

but may cause an small increase of another pollutant. For example, a thermal oxidizer for controlling

VOC may cause an increase in NOx emission. This requires discussion in the Preliminary Decision 

as to the choice of BACT relating to the pollutant requiring the lowest emission rates. 

The proposed rule is more stringent than the current rule. The proposed reduction in the thresholds is 

required to comply with three separate provisions in state law: HSC Sections 40919, 41010(b), and 

42504, as discussed below. 

In 1991, the District changed the BACT trigger levels from 150 pounds per day to 0 pounds per day 

due to California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requirements for stationary source permitting programs. The 

 

16 42 USC 7503(c) 

17 Section 42505 of the California Health and Safety Code 

18 California Air Resources Board, District NSR Rules as they existed on December 31, 2002, last accessed 

May 10, 2010, <http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/sb288/rules/rules.htm#24> 

19 Section 42504 of the California Health and Safety Code 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 7 

1988 CCAA required district permitting programs to achieve no net increase in emissions of 

nonattainment pollutants or their precursors from all permitted new or modified stationary sources. 

ARB Guidance20 recommended requiring BACT for all new sources to minimize the likely increased 

demand for offsets caused by law. 

In 1993, the California Clean Air Act was revised to relax the no net increase requirement and allowed

districts to set higher trigger levels for BACT (HSC Section 40919). HSC Section 40919 requires 

BACT when a stationary source (rather than an emission unit) has the potential to emit 10 lbs/day or 

more of any nonattainment pollutant or its precursors excluding particulate matter. 

HSC Section 41010(b) requires that the rules and regulations adopted by the Sacramento district 

board pursuant to subdivision (a) shall require the use of best available control technology for new or 

modified sources. Staff interprets this to mean for any emissions increase. This is consistent with 

South Coast Air Quality Management District which has identical statutory language, HSC Section 

40440(b)(1). 

The 1991 version of the rule required BACT for any emissions increase therefore SB28821 requires 

BACT for all new and modified sources. 

A BACT trigger for PM2.5 of 0 lbs/day is proposed to match the proposed BACT trigger for PM10. 

The BACT trigger for PM2.5 matches the PM10 BACT trigger because PM2.5 is a subset of PM10. 

Additionally, no further guidance has been provided to choose a different PM2.5 BACT trigger 

level.SB288 Analysis - Offset Changes: SB288 prohibits the District from amending or revising NSR 

rules to be less stringent than the NSR rules that existed on December 30, 2002. A few very limited 

exemptions apply. A NSR rule may be amended or revised to be less stringent if several narrowly 

designed requirements are met, such as the rule being unworkable due to engineering or other 

technical problems or otherwise will cause substantial hardship to business, industry, or category of 

sources. In such cases, SB288 requires a narrowly tailored relief and requires the district provide 

equivalent reductions in emissions22

. 

Staff analyzed whether the proposed amendment to Rule 202 was less stringent than the baseline 

rule as discussed below. Staff's findings are that the proposed changes to Rule 202 will not adversely 

impact air quality in the District and will not result in the relaxation of the rule requirements that were in 

existence prior to December 2002. 

The table below summarizes the requirements of Rule 202 that are contained in the SB288 baseline 

rule23, current rule, and proposed rule. 

 

20 ”Permitting Program Guidelines for New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas”, Air Resources Board 

Stationary Source Division, July 1990, p. 7 

21 HSC Section 42504 

22 Section 42504 of California Health and Safety Code

23 See discussion in Background section, Chapter 4.5 Protect California Air Act 2003 / SB288 Requirements, for 

discussion of the baseline rule for this SB 288 analysis. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 8 

Requirement SB288 

Baseline 

Rule (1991) 

Current 

Rule (2005) 

Proposed 

Rule 

Major Source Definition 50 tpy 25 tpy 25 tpy 

Offset Triggers 25 tpy (for major) 25 tpy (for major) 

 ROC & NOx 

150 lbs/day 

(27.4 tpy) 15 tpy (non-major) 15 tpy (non-major) 

Offset Trigger 

 PM10 

80 lbs/day 

(14.6 tpy) 

7,500 lbs/qtr 

(15 tpy) 

7,300 lbs/qtr 

(14.6 tpy) 

1.3 (major VOC & 

NOx >25 tpy) 

1.3 (major VOC & 

NOx >25 tpy) 

Offset ratios – 

on-site reductions 

1.024 

1.0 (non-major - all 

other pollutants 

>15 tpy) 

1.0 (non-major – all 

other pollutants >15 

tpy) 

1.3 (major >25 tpy)25 1.3 (major >25 tpy)25 Offset ratios All 

Nonattainment Pollutants – 

Offsite <15 miles 

1.2

1.2 (non-major > 15 

tpy) 

1.2 (non-major > 15 

tpy) 

Offset ratios ROC & NOx 

– Offsite >15 miles 

2.0 1.5 (major and 

non-major >15 tpy) 

2.0 (major and 

non-major >15 tpy) 

Offset ratio PM10 – Offsite 

>15 miles 

2.0 1.5 (major and 

non-major >15 tpy) 

2.0 (major and 

non-major >15 tpy) 

Offset ratios 

ROC & NOx – Offsite > 50 

miles or Outside Air Basin 

>2.026 >1.526 >2.026 

Offset ratio PM10 – Offsite 

> 50 miles or Outside Air 

Basin 

>2.0 >1.5 

(major and 

non-major >15 tpy) 

>2.0 

(major and 

non-major >15 tpy) 

The list below highlights key provisions, in the current rule, that are less stringent than the SB288 

baseline rule. The proposed change is also discussed below. 

1. Difference – The SB288 baseline rule had daily offset trigger levels for all pollutants 

Change – The proposed rule will maintain quarterly offset trigger levels. The 1991 Rule 202 

version calculated proposed emissions from an emissions unit for each calendar quarter and 

actual emissions reductions calculated for each calendar quarter, in pounds per day. This 

flexibility allows the proposed language to maintain the offset trigger and calculation 

procedure in pounds per quarter. 

2. Difference – Slightly lower offset trigger level of 14.6 tpy for PM10. 

Change – The proposed rule will slightly lower the offset trigger for PM10. 

 

24 The offset ratios in the SB288 baseline rule were 0.1 higher than the numbers shown in this table. The extra 

10% in the offset ratio was to accumulate funding for the Community Bank pursuant to Rule 202, Section 413 

(1991 version). This mechanism was moved to Rule 204 when the banking rule was adopted in 1992. 

Therefore, to make a direct comparison to current offset ratios, the Community Bank portion has been 

removed. 

25 42 USC 7511 a(d)(2) 

26 The APCO shall analyze the impact on the air quality increments as such offsets in the category could be 

subject to higher offset ratio. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 9 

3. Difference – The SB288 baseline rule had higher offset ratios for ROC, NOx and PM10 where 

the offsets come from distances greater than 15 miles from the source using the offsets. 

Change – The offset ratios are proposed to be increased to 2.0 to 1.0. 

4. Difference – The SB288 baseline rule had higher offset ratios for offsets for ROC, NOx and 

PM10 where the offsets come from distances greater than 50 miles from the source (although 

it was slightly less stringent in that it allowed using the offsets from Outside the Air Basin.) 

Change – The offset ratios are proposed to be increased to 2.0 to 1.0 with the restriction and 

maintain the requirement that offsets come from within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin 

consistent with state law. 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Overview: The proposed amendments are: 

• Rule 202 – NEW SOURCE REVIEW contains requirements to meet state and federal laws 

and regulations and applies to both major and minor sources. 

• Proposed new Rule 214 – FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW contains the requirements 

needed to satisfy federal law. To assist the reader we show the language as compared to the 

language in proposed Rule 202 – New Source Review. Only Rule 214 will be submitted to 

EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan27. Major sources are subject to both 

proposed Rules 202 and 214. Clean Air Act requirements related to EPA enforcement28 and 

citizen lawsuits29 only pertain to the SIP approved version. Rule 202 will not be submitted for 

SIP approval. 

• Rule 215 – AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL 

PERMIT REVIEW contains requirements for non-major agricultural sources. Proposed 

amendments to Rule 215 specify that both Rule 214 and Rule 202 apply to major agricultural 

sources. 

• Limited the Emergency Equipment exemption to apply only if the equipment is not a major 

source or major modification in Rule 202 and 214. (110(l)/193 SIP issue, included in both 

Rule 202 and 214) 

• Temporary Source exemption is limited to emissions units with daily emissions increases that 

do not exceed the specified levels in the ’91 Rule (SB288 issue, the emission increase 

provision is only included in Rule 202). 

• Added new exemption for agricultural sources that are not major sources or major 

modifications. (HSC Section 42301.16, only included in Rule 202) 

• Limited the Replacement Equipment exemption applicability to an identical emissions unit(s) 

or functionally equivalent, if the functionally equivalent unit not a major source or major 

modification. (SB288 issue, included in both Rule 202 and 214) 

• Added alternative siting requirements previously in Rule 213. (Clarity issue, included in both 

Rule 202 and 214) 

• BACT required for all emission increases. (state law and 110(l)/193 SIP issue included in both 

Rule 202 and 214) 

 

27 Replacing the approved version of Rule 202 adopted Nov. 20, 1984 and approved by EPA into the SIP 

June 19, 1985 Federal Register, Volume 50, page 25417. 

28 42 USC 7413 

29 42 USC 7604 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 10 

• Lowered offset trigger level for PM10 to 14.6 tons per year consistent with ’91 Rule. (SB288 

issue, only included in Rule 202, Rule 214 establishes the offset trigger level at 15 tpy 

because we area federal nonattainment area for PM2.5) 

• Increased emission offset ratios consistent with the ’91 Rule. (SB288 issue and 110(l)/193 

SIP issue, included in both Rule 202 and 214) 

• Added PM2.5 stationary source NSR Clean Air Act requirements. (CAA requirement 

designated nonattainment for 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, included in both Rule 202 and 214) 

• Required emission offset for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors to be obtained within the 

Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area for PM2.5. (CAA requirement, included in both Rule 

202 and 214) 

• Added 40 CFR Part 51.165 requirements to the definitions of Historic Actual Emissions and 

Historic Potential Emissions. (federal requirement, included in both Rule 202 and 214) 

COST IMPACTS 

Section 40703 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that the District consider and make 

public its findings relating to the cost effectiveness of implementing an emissions control measure. 

Impact on Businesses in Sacramento: Proposed amendments to Rules 202 and 214 are required 

to meet state and federal requirements respectively. The primary changes that potentially impact 

businesses include; increased offsets, and additional BACT controls. Increase offsets arise from the 

following two changes: 1) Sources that are required to provide offsets, must provide a larger amount 

because the offset ratios are increased if the offsets are obtained from sources located further than 

15 miles from the new or expanding source, and 2) more sources may be required to provide offsets 

because the PM10 offset trigger is lowered from 15 tons per year (tpy or 7500 pounds/quarter) to 14.6 

tpy (7,300 pounds/quarter). The most recent offset costs are noted in the Table below. 

Pollutant Sacramento and 

Surrounding Areas for 

200730

($/ton) 

Community Bank31

($/ton) 

VOC $10,000 – $75,000 $16,440 – $27,906 

NOx $10,000 – $16,000 $31,920 

PM10 $20,000 $31,416 – $33,685 

SOx $500 $5,000 

CO $1 $2,500 – $20,000 

Some sources that exceed the revised offset triggers may instead choose to reduce their allowed 

emissions levels since most sources operate well below permitted levels. The amount of offsets 

required also may be limited by the imposition of the second modified requirement for BACT on all 

new sources and any emission increase. The BACT requirement may increase the cost for new or 

 

30 California Air Resources Board, “Emission Reduction Offsets Transaction Cost Summary 

Report for 2007”, December 2008 

31 SMAQMD, “Annual Review of Emission Reduction Credit Loan Renewal Administrative Fee and Emission 

Reduction Credit Loan Rate”, March 24, 2005
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 11 

modified equipment that would have been exempt from BACT under the current rule if that equipment 

does not meet BACT. The actual requirements for BACT are determined on a case-by-case basis 

considering technical feasibility and control levels achieved-in-practice by similar sources. In some 

cases, the BACT requirements are the same controls required by other District rules, resulting in no 

additional costs. Even when BACT controls are not already required, the BACT requires emissions 

levels or controls that have been achieved in practice, therefore, the actual costs are limited by what 

has been economically feasible for other businesses. In addition, the cost of the BACT is explicitly 

capped for non-major sources. The current cost caps are noted in the table below. Staff has a BACT 

manual that identifies what equipment is generally considered BACT for common sources such as 

boilers and internal combustion engines. Staff is expanding the manual to include additional sources 

and equipment. 

Pollutant Maximum Cost 

($/ton) 

VOC 17,500* 

NOx 24,500 

PM10 11,400 

SOx 18,300 

CO TBD if BACT triggered 

* Coating operations that have reduced VOC emissions by: 

• 35 to 80% through the use of low-VOC coatings (lower than specified by 

the applicable rule): $13,750/ton for VOC 

• More than 80%: $10,000/ton for VOC 

The actual impact on businesses will depend on 1) the number of business that will modify their 

operations in the future, 2) the incremental costs of any additional controls, 3) the increases in 

permitted emissions levels associated with the modifications, and 4) the location of the offsets. 

Therefore, staff cannot accurately predict the total costs. 

Cost to District: Staff estimates an additional 0.36 FTE are needed to implement the revised BACT 

requirement. Staff does not anticipate a need for staff resources for changes to the offset 

requirements. 

EMISSIONS IMPACT 

Overall, the proposed revisions that require some sources to use additional emission controls and/or 

find emission mitigation (offsets) will achieve emission reductions of pollutants that exceed state and 

federal health standards. However, as discussed in the Cost Impacts - Impacts on Business above, 

the actual impacts, and associated emissions reductions, depend on the four factors noted and, 

therefore, staff cannot estimate the quantity of emission reduction benefits anticipated from the 

proposed rule amendments. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 12 

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

CHSC Section 40728.5 requires a district to perform an assessment of the socioeconomic impacts 

before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule that will significantly affect air quality or emission 

limitations. The District Board is required to actively consider the socioeconomic impacts of the 

proposal and make a good faith effort to minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

CHSC Section 40728.5 requires discussion of: 

1. The type of industry or business, including small business, affected by the proposed rule or rule 

amendments. 

2. The impact of the proposed rule or rule amendments on employment and the economy of the 

region. 

3. The range of probable costs, including costs to industry or business, including small business. 

4. The availability and cost-effectiveness of alternatives to the proposed rule or rule amendments. 

5. The emission reduction potential of the rule or regulation. 

6. The necessity of adopting, amending, or repealing the rule or regulation to attain state and federal 

ambient air standards. 

Type of industry or business, including small business, affected by the proposed rule: Rule 202 

applies to any stationary source that installs or modifies emissions units. Rule 214 applies to any 

major stationary source that installs or modifies emissions units. The sources could include chemical

production plants, food processors, manufacturing plants, coating facilities, public schools using 

equipment such as large natural gas space or water heaters, hospitals, and office buildings. 

Impact on employment and economy in the District of the proposed rule: The amendments to the 

proposed rules may impose additional offset costs for sources with emissions greater than 14.6 tons 

per year of PM10 or greater than 15 tons per year of PM2.5 that modify their operations or for sources

that obtain offsets from sources located further than 15 miles from the new or expanding source. 

BACT is proposed for all new sources and any emission increase regardless of emissions of the 

device. The lower BACT trigger level reduces the need for sources to obtain offsets. Many of these 

sources will choose to take emissions limitation rather than provide emissions offsets. Staff does not 

know how many facilities will take a permit limit below the offset trigger levels and how many will 

require offset credits. Staff does not anticipate a significant impact on the employment and economy 

in Sacramento. 

Range of probable costs, including costs to industry or business, including small business of the 

proposed rule: See Cost Impacts discussion above. 

Availability and cost effectiveness of alternatives to the proposed rule: The primary purpose of these 

rule amendments are to retain local air quality permitting authority by revising the SIP before the 

consent decree deadline in WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson. The proposed amendments also satisfy 

Clean Air Act requirements associated with our reclassification to ‘severe’ ozone nonattainment area 

and redesignation to nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 air quality standards. In proposing the rules, 

Staff is threading the needles of state and federal laws and has not identified any alternatives that 

meet these purposes. Staff does not propose to only make revisions necessary to satisfy only federal 

laws and requirements and not the more stringent state laws, because SB288 prohibits an air quality 

management district from amending or revising their new source review rule to be less stringent than 

the rule that existed on December 30, 2002. If California Air Resources Board finds, after a public 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 13 

hearing, that a district’s NSR rules are not equivalent to or more stringent than those that existed on 

December 30, 2002, CARB shall promptly adopt for that district the rules or regulations that may be 

necessary to establish equivalency. 

That leaves the only alternative is to not amend the rules. A likely result of not amending the rules is 

that, on or about May 11, 2011 EPA would impose a federal implementation plan (FIP) imposing the 

federal requirements and the EPA Region 9 office in San Francisco would issue permits to affected 

new and modified sources. In addition, this would trigger two sanction clocks that would be turned off 

when the EPA approves a satisfactory new source review rule. The first sanction occurs 18 months 

after EPA's FIP and establishes an emission offset sanction. Under the emission offset sanction, 

each ton of emissions created by a new stationary source of pollution is offset by a two ton reduction

in existing stationary sources. The second sanction applied 24 months after EPA's FIP and imposes 

a highway fund sanction. Under the highway fund sanction, Sacramento County would lose funding 

for transportation projects if the funds have not been obligated by the Federal Highway Administration

by the date the highway sanctions are imposed. (Projects that have already received approval to 

proceed and had funds obligated may proceed.) 

One alternative is for EPA to approve in part the 1991 rule and promulgate a FIP for the remaining 

NSR requirements. That would reduce the number of sources for which we would no longer have 

permitting authority and the two sanction clocks would be still be triggered. A FIP would be needed 

for the parts of the 1991 rule that do not meet federal requirements. Those parts pertain to; 1) the 

noticing exemption, 2) the rule compliance exemption, 3) same source offset ratio must be 1.3:1, and 

4) lower certain offset trigger levels. EPA could strike the two exemptions. Without the noticing 

exemption, all permit applications subject to Rule 202 would require a public notice and the 

associated fees and delays for that notice. Striking the rule compliance exemption could require all 

modifications that increase emissions above the offset trigger levels, not just major modifications, to 

offset their increased emissions. In addition, if EPA approved the 1991 rule daily emission limits 

could be required on all permits, the daily offset trigger would apply to all sources (rather than just 

peaking power plants), and the exemption from offsets for replacement equipment exemption would 

apply only to identical (except serial number) equipment at non-major sources. In summary, if EPA 

was to approve in part the 1991 version of Rule 202, not only would most of Rule 214 requirements 

apply, but several additional burdens that would not be required by federal regulations, and not 

included in the proposed Rule 214 or Rule 202 amendments, could be required . 

Emission reduction potential of the proposed amendments: The proposed amendments will result in 

an overall benefit to air quality in the District. See the discussion of Emissions Impacts, above. 

Necessity of adopting the amendments: Staff proposed amendments in order to comply with federal 

regulations, Clean Air Act requirements and state law. 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE 

Staff finds that the proposed rules are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as an 

action by a regulatory agency for protection of the environment (Class 8 Categorical Exemption, 

Section 15308 State CEQA Guidelines) and because it can be seen with certainty that there is no 

possibility that the activity in question may have a significant adverse effect on the environment 

(Section 15061(b)(3), State CEQA Guidelines). 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 14 

California Public Resources Code (Section 21159) requires an environmental analysis of the 

reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance. Staff compared the impact of the amendments of 

the rules with the existing rules. The proposed rules require additional sources to implement BACT 

level controls, set lower offset trigger levels, and increase offset ratios. The analysis concludes the 

amendments to Rule 202 and Rule 214 will result in an air quality emission benefits. Rule 215 

requires compliance with Rule 214 for major agricultural sources. As noted previously in this report, 

the actual offsets impacts from additional control requirements cannot be quantified or identified. New 

and modified sources require local agency approvals, including District permits, and compliance with 

CEQA for any associated significant environmental impacts, therefore Staff has concluded that no 

environmental impacts will be caused by compliance with the proposed rules.

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Staff held a public workshop to discuss the proposed amendments on August 10, 2010. A public 

notice was mailed to interested parties, including the affected sources, and was posted on the District 

website. The draft rules and staff report were available for public review at that time. 

Staff received comments and questions at the workshop. All comments and responses re included in 

Appendix C. In response to public comments, Staff has aligned the PM2.5 emission offset ratios (and 

ammonia if needed) to the PM10 emission offset ratios, adjusted the PM2.5 offset trigger to 15 tpy 

matching Placer County and made a few minor grammatical changes. Although the increase in 

triggers will subject fewer sources to offset requirements, for sources that trigger offsets there will be 

an increase in the amount of direct PM2.5 offsets surrendered depending on the distance of the 

generated emission offsets. 

FINDINGS 

The California Health and Safety Code (HSC), Division 26, Air Resources, requires local districts to 

comply with a rule adoption protocol as set forth in Section 40727 of the Code. This section has been

revised through legislative mandate to contain six findings that the District must make when 

developing, amending, or repealing a rule. These findings, effective January 1, 1992, and their 

definitions are listed in the table below.

Rule 202 – Required Findings 

Finding Finding Determination 

Authority: The District must find that a provision of 

law or of a state or federal regulation permits or 

requires the District to adopt, amend, or repeal the 

rule. 

The District is authorized to adopt and amend Rule 202 by 

California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 40001, 

40702, 41010, and 42300. [HSC Section 40727(b)(2)]. 

Necessity: The District must find that the 

rulemaking demonstrates a need exists for the rule,

or for its amendment or repeal. 

It is necessary to adopt the proposed amendments to Rule 

202 to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 

7410(a)(2)(C), 7410(l), 7515 7502(c)(5), 7503, and 

7511a(d)(2)), 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, the 

Consent Decree, and no net increase program 

requirements of Health and Safety Code 40919, 41010(b), 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 15 

Finding Finding Determination 

and 42504. [HSC Section 40727(b)(1)]. 

Clarity: The District must find that the rule is written 

or displayed so that its meaning can be easily 

understood by the persons directly affected by it. 

Staff has reviewed the proposed rule and determined that 

it can be understood by the affected parties. In addition, 

the record contains no evidence that people directly 

affected by the rule cannot understand the rule. [HSC 

Section 40727(b)(3)]. 

Consistency: The rule is in harmony with, and not in 

conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, 

court decisions, or state or federal regulations. 

The proposed rule does not conflict with, and is not 

contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state 

or federal regulations. [HSC Section 40727(b)(4)].

Non-Duplication: The District must find that either: 

1) The rule does not impose the same requirements 

as an existing state or federal regulation; or (2) that 

the duplicative requirements are necessary or proper 

to execute the powers and duties granted to, and 

imposed upon the District. 

The proposed rule duplicates federal regulations for 

permitting programs (40 CFR Part 51.165). The 

duplicative requirements are necessary in order to execute 

the powers and duties imposed upon the District because 

the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7410(a)(2)(c)) requires 

New Source Review to be included in the State 

Implementation Plan. This rule contains those provisions 

and other requirements necessary to comply with state 

law, specified in HSC Section 39610(b). [HSC Section 

40727(b)(5)]. 

Reference: The District must refer to any statute, 

court decision, or other provision of law that the 

District implements, interprets, or makes specific by 

adopting, amending or repealing the rule. 

In adopting the proposed rule, the District is implementing 

the requirements of HSC Sections 40919, 41010(b) and 

42504, and Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7410(a)(2)(C), 

7502(c)(5), 7503, and 7511a(d)(2)). [HSC Section 

40727(b)(6)] 

Additional Informational Requirements: In 

complying with HSC Section 40727.2, the District 

must identify all federal requirements and District

rules that apply to the same equipment or source 

type as the proposed rule or amendments. 

Appendix B includes a comparison with federal 

requirements. [HSC Section 40727.2]. 

Rule 214 – Required Findings 

Finding Finding Determination 

Authority: The District must find that a provision of 

law or of a state or federal regulation permits or 

requires the District to adopt, amend, or repeal the 

rule. 

The District is authorized to adopt and amend Rule 214 by 

California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 40001, 

40702, 41010, and 42300. [HSC Section 40727(b)(2)]. 

Necessity: The District must find that the 

rulemaking demonstrates a need exists for the rule,

or for its amendment or repeal. 

It is necessary to adopt the proposed amendments to Rule 

202 to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 

7410(a)(2)(C), 7410(l), 7515 7502(c)(5), 7503, and 

7511a(d)(2)), 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, the 

Consent Decree. [HSC Section 40727(b)(1)]. 

Clarity: The District must find that the rule is written 

or displayed so that its meaning can be easily 

understood by the persons directly affected by it. 

Staff has reviewed the proposed rule and determined that 

it can be understood by the affected parties. In addition, 

the record contains no evidence that people directly 

affected by the rule cannot understand the rule. [HSC 

Section 40727(b)(3)]. 

Consistency: The rule is in harmony with, and not in 

conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, 

court decisions, or state or federal regulations. 

The proposed rule does not conflict with, and is not 

contradictory to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state 

or federal regulations. [HSC Section 40727(b)(4)].

Non-Duplication: The District must find that either: 

1) The rule does not impose the same requirements 

as an existing state or federal regulation; or (2) that 

The proposed rule duplicates federal regulations for 

permitting programs (40 CFR Part 51.165). The 

duplicative requirements are necessary in order to execute 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 16 

Finding Finding Determination 

the duplicative requirements are necessary or proper 

to execute the powers and duties granted to, and 

imposed upon the District. 

the powers and duties imposed upon the District because 

the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7410(a)(2)(c)) requires 

New Source Review to be included in the State 

Implementation Plan. This rule contains those provisions 

and other requirements necessary to comply with state 

law, specified in HSC Section 39610(b). [HSC Section 

40727(b)(5)]. 

Reference: The District must refer to any statute, 

court decision, or other provision of law that the 

District implements, interprets, or makes specific by 

adopting, amending or repealing the rule. 

In adopting the proposed rule, the District is implementing 

the requirements of Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 

7410(a)(2)(C), 7502(c)(5), 7503, and 7511a(d)(2)). [HSC 

Section 40727(b)(6)] 

Additional Informational Requirements: In 

complying with HSC Section 40727.2, the District 

must identify all federal requirements and District

rules that apply to the same equipment or source 

type as the proposed rule or amendments. 

Appendix B includes a comparison with federal 

requirements. [HSC Section 40727.2]. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 17 

Rule 215 – Required Findings 

Finding Finding Determination 

Authority: The District must find that a provision of law 

or of a state or federal regulation permits or requires 

the District to adopt, amend, or repeal the rule. 

The District is authorized to adopt rules and regulations by 

Health & Safety Code Sections 40001, 40702, 41010, 

40919, 42301.16, and 42300 et. seq. (Health & Safety 

Code Section 40727(b)(2)) 

Necessity: The District must find that the rulemaking 

demonstrates a need exists for the rule, or for its

amendment or repeal. 

It is necessary for the District to amend the existing rule to 

comply with Health and Safety Code Section 42301.16. 

(Health & Safety Code Section 40727(b)(1)) 

Clarity: The District must find that the rule is written or 

displayed so that its meaning can be easily understood 

by the persons directly affected by it. 

The District has reviewed the rule and determined that it 

can be easily understood by the affected industry. In 

addition, the record contains no evidence that the persons 

directly affected by the rule cannot understand the rule. 

(Health & Safety Code Section 40727(b)(3)) 

Consistency: The rule is in harmony with, and not in 

conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court 

decisions, or state or federal regulations. 

The proposed rule amendments do not conflict with and 

are not contradictory to existing statutes, court decisions, 

or state or federal regulations. (Health & Safety Code 

Section 40727(b)(4)) 

Non-Duplication: The District must find that either: 1) 

The rule does not impose the same requirements as an 

existing site or federal regulation; or 2) that the

duplicative requirements are necessary or proper to

execute the powers and duties granted to, and 

imposed upon the District. 

The proposed rule duplicates federal regulations for 

permitting programs (40 CFR Part 51.165). The 

duplicative requirements are necessary in order to execute 

the powers and duties imposed upon the District because 

the Federal Clean Air Act (42 USC 7410(a)(2)(c)) requires 

New Source Review to be included in the State 

Implementation Plan. This rule contains those provisions 

and other requirements necessary to comply with state 

law, specified in HSC Section 39610(b). [HSC Section 

40727(b)(5)]. 

Reference: The District must refer to any statute, 

court decision, or other provision of law that the District 

implements, interprets, or makes specific by adopting, 

amending or repealing the rule. 

The adoption implements state law requirements pursuant 

to Health and Safety Code Section 42301.16. (Health & 

Safety Code Section 40727(b)(6)) 

Additional Informational Requirements (Health & 

Safety Code Section 40727): In complying with HSC 

Section 40727, the District must identify all federal 

requirements and District rules that apply to the same 

equipment or source type as the proposed rule or 

amendments. 

There are no federal requirements that apply to these 

sources because this permitting program does not apply to 

new major stationary sources or major modifications. 

(Health & Safety Code Section 40727.2) 

REFERENCES 

California Air Resources Board, “New Source Review Permitting Programs.” 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/nsr/nsr.htm

California Air Resources Board, New Source Review and Senate Bill 288 Guidance, April, 2006. 

(ARB, 2006). 

California Air Resources Board, SB 288 Hearing Process Guidance, January 26, 2007. 

“Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)”, Federal Register 73:96 (May 16, 2008) p. 28321. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 18 

Placer County Air Pollution Control District, “Rule 502 New Source Review”, February 11, 2010. 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, “Rule 2201 New and Modified Stationary 

Source Review Rule”, December, 18, 2008. 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, “2008 PM2.5 Plan”, April 30, 2008. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Rule XIII – New Source Review”, Various Dates 

U.S. EPA Comments for Rule 202, March 4, 1996 & September 3, 1996. 

U.S. EPA Comments for Rule 202, August 14, 2000. 

U.S. EPA, 40 CFR 51.165, Permit Requirements. 

U.S. EPA, 40 CFR 51, Appendix S to Part 51 – Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling.
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 19 

APPENDIX A 

LIST OF CHANGES TO RULES 

Rule 202 – New Source Review 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

101 Same Revised language to clarify rule provides for issuance of authorities to 

construct and permits to operate and changed the word ”may” from 

“would then”. 

102 Same Revised Rule 202 applicability, removed reference to agriculture and 

agricultural practices, and major source applicability. See also new 

Section 112. Agricultural sources that are major sources are subject to 

this rule due to changes in state law, HSC Section 42301.16. Added 

language from major modification section to clarify which emission 

units are subject in calculating potential to emit for determining major 

source applicability. Removed references to sections within Rule 207 

are extraneous and not recommended by EPA for SIP approvability. 

Revised the term “affected pollutants” to “regulated air pollutants” for 

rule consistency and revised section reference. 

110 Same Revised exemption to clarify and limit exemption applicability. 

Emergency Equipment exemption does not apply if the emissions unit 

is a major stationary source or is a major modification. Change made 

due to EPA comments for SIP approvability and to be consistent with 

the 1984 SIP rule. 

110.1 Same Revised language to clarify emergency equipment shall not exceed 

100 hours per year for maintenance purposes. 

110.2 Same Revised language to clarify operation of emergency equipment shall 

not exceed a total of 200 hours per year. 

111 Same Revised exemption to require the emissions unit emission increase not 

exceed the daily emissions levels specified in 1991 Rule. This 

exemption was added after the 1991 amendments. However, the 1991 

rule would not have required offsets for sources that emitted less than 

the levels specified here. Change made due to SB288 requirements.

112 N/A Added exemption to clarify what already is happening for non-major 

agricultural stationary source and agricultural non-major modifications. 

 These agricultural sources are subject to the requirements of Rule 215 

– Agricultural Permit Requirements and New Agricultural Permit 

Review. HSC Section 42301.16 

113 112 Revised exemption to include PM2.5. PM2.5 has been added to this 

rule because the District is now a federal PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Added PM2.5 exemption level for notification, on annual basis, 

consistent with PM2.5 offset requirements (used offset trigger levels as 

the threshold). Revised the term “reactive” to “volatile” to be consistent 

with other District rules and simplified by calculating PTE from “the 

project,” with “project” being defined in Section 235. Revised section 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 20 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

reference. 

114 113 Revised exemption to include the replacement equipment requirement 

that is removed. Revised “replacement equipment” exemption to 

satisfy SB288 and retain the exemption. The existing adopted rule 

modified the 1991 rule by allowing "functionally identical" instead of 

"identical" equipment to be considered replacement equipment. Under 

the 1991 rule, if equipment replacement was not "identical", then it 

would be subject to offsets if the emissions exceeded the 1991 offset 

thresholds except for VOC and NOx set at 136 lbs/day (25 tpy) 

consistent with major source levels of 25 tpy in the CAA for “severe” 

nonattainment. Therefore, "functionally" identical replacements can 

continue to be allowed, only if the daily emissions increase is less than 

the 1991 offset thresholds. 

115 114 Revised significant to major to match 40 CFR Part 51. 

116 N/A Added exemption for modifications that are not federal major 

modifications from the requirements of Section 401 – Alternative Siting. 

 Rule 213 is proposed to be rescinded and relevant requirements 

incorporated in Rule 202 for clarity. 

200 Same Revised section to explicitly include terms defined in Rule 101 – 

General Provisions and Definitions. Rule 101 contains the definition of 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC). 

N/A 202 Eliminated “actual emissions reductions” definition. Term no longer 

used in rule. 

202 203 Section renumbered. 

N/A 204 Eliminated “affected pollutants” definition. Term replaced with 

“regulated air pollutant” as defined by 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S. 

203 205 Revised to include U.S. Code and California Health and Safety Code 

for ambient air quality standards. Removed language referring to rule 

submittal to EPA for inclusion into the SIP. Rule 202 will not be 

submitted to the SIP. 

204 206 Revised the definition to change the term “affected pollutants” to the 

new term “regulated air pollutants”. Revised language to clarify BACT 

determination is for each nonattainment pollutant. 

205-206 207-208 Sections renumbered. 

207 N/A Added “commencing operation” definition for the term used in the 

definition of new emissions unit consistent with the definition startup 

from 40 CFR 52.01 section (f). 

208 N/A Added “construction commences” definition for the term used in the 

definition of creditable increases and decreases consistent with 40 

CFR Part 51.165 section (a)(1)(xvi). 

210 Same Revised “Cost Effectiveness Guidelines” to “BACT Policy” for 

determining cost-effective levels and added language that cost 

effectiveness does not apply to major stationary sources or major 

modifications consistent with the ’91 rule. Revised the term “affected 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 21 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

pollutants” to “regulated air pollutants” for rule consistency. 

211 Same Revised the period for creditable increases and decreases consistent 

with 40 CFR Part 51.165 and revised the term “federally enforceable” 

to “enforceable as a practical matter” consistent with “net emissions 

increase” definition in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S, Section II.A.6.i. 

212 Same Revised term “cumulative emission increase” to “emission increase” for 

rule clarity. Revised section reference. 

213 Same Revised the definition to change the term “affected pollutants” to the 

new term “regulated air pollutants”. 

214 Same Added PM2.5 offset requirements to Section 302 consistent with 

federally required annual offset trigger levels. To enforce this new 

requirement, where applicable, daily and annual enforceable emissions 

limitations have been added. Moved the reference to NSPS and 

NESHAP provisions to Section 40X. 

N/A 214.4 Section moved to Section 410.2d. 

215 Same Revised the term “affected pollutants” to “regulated air pollutants” for 

rule consistency. 

216 N/A Added “existing emissions unit” definition for the term used in the 

definition of historic potential emissions. 

217 N/A Added “federal major modification” definition taken verbatim from Rule 

213. This definition specifies the sources that are exempt from 

alternative siting analysis requirements in Section 401. 

218-219 216-217 Sections renumbered. 

220.1 218 Revised the definition adding historic actual emissions using actual 

operating days or if no records using permitted operating days or 

calendar days, whichever is less. Under the1991 rule, actual daily 

emissions reductions were calculated by dividing the actual quarterly 

emissions by actual operating days. Change made due to SB288 

requirements. 

220.2 N/A Added operating days in calculation used to reduce historical actual 

emissions by non-compliance emissions. Under the 1991 rule, daily 

emissions days were used for the calculation procedure. Changed 

made due to SB288 requirements. 

220.3 N/A Revised definition for clarity and consistency with 40 CFR Part 51 

Appendix S Section II.30.iii which defines actual emissions as 

excluding emissions from new emissions units (equipment operated 

less than 2 years.) See also Section 225. 

220.4 N/A Revised existing language for flexibility of non-major sources that are 

not subject to the most stringent requirements of Appendix S. 

221 218 Revised definition consistent with EPA comments (September 3, 1996) 

and SB288. Added PM2.5 consistent with PM2.5 NSR Implementation 

Rule. Grandfather date for latest Permit to Operate for PM2.5 same as 

PM10 (January 1, 1977)}. 

221.1 219.3 Section renumbered. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 22 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

221.2 219.1 For non-major sources, the historic potential emissions will remain 

equal to the potential to emit: 

a. for BACT only if the permit had an enforceable daily 

emissions limit on the Authority to Construct or Permit to 

Operate. 

b. for offset trigger determinations and quantity of offsets 

provided only if the permit had enforceable quarterly 

limitations permit had an enforceable daily emissions limit 

on the Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate, and 

c. for determining daily offset triggers for peaking power 

plants and for determining whether new requirements in 

Section 303.2 only if the permit had an enforceable daily 

emissions limit on the Authority to Construct or Permit to 

Operate. 

221.3 219.2 Revised language consistent with 1996 comments (see section 

221.3a) and maintained the procedure for emissions unit 

that are fully offset for any emission increase. 

221.3a 219.4 Revised language to satisfy 1996 EPA comment that if a unit has 

enforceable limits, and has been operating within 80% of those limits, 

the unit’s historic potential to emit shall equal to the enforceable limit. 

222 N/A Added “identical emissions unit” definition for clarification of 

Replacement Equipment. Change made due to SB288 requirements.

N/A 220 Moved definition to correct alphabetical ordering of definitions. 

223 221 Revised definition to add PM2.5, PM2.5 precursors, and ammonia 

consistent with PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. Also, revised the 

term “affected pollutants” to “regulated air pollutants” and “reactive” to 

“volatile” for rule consistency. 

223.1 N/A Added lead compounds consistent with California Health and Safety 

Code Section 41706. 

223.2 N/A Added section to set significance levels for PM2.5 consistent with 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. Some PM2.5 precursors are also 

ozone precursors, but have higher major modification thresholds than 

ozone. Therefore, if a project exceeds the major modification 

threshold for PM2.5 then it requires any offsets of PM2.5 and PM2.5 

precursors to be located within the Sacramento federal nonattainment 

area for PM2.5 pursuant to Section 302.12. The federal PM2.5 

nonattainment area is smaller than the ozone nonattainment area, and 

excludes Sutter and Solano Counties, part of Yolo County, and a larger 

portion of Placer and El Dorado Counties. 

224 N/A Added “major stationary source” definition (moved from Section 220). 

Added PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor consistent with NSR

Implementation Rule. Revised section reference. 

225 222 Revised section consistent with 1991 rule by adding the language 

“including change in fuel” and “is not specifically limited by a permit 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 23 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

condition”. Additionally, clarified replacement of air pollution control 

equipment with new control equipment is not a modification if the 

emissions are less than or equal as determined by Section 413.3 

Changes made due to SB288 requirements. Changed the term “the 

replacement” to “replacing” to clarify this section is not part of the 

replacement equipment exemption and the term “significant” to “major”.

226 N/A Added “new emissions unit” definition for clarification of Historic 

Potential Emissions. This definition is consistent with 40 CFR 51, 

Appendix S, Section II.A.7.i. 

227 223 Revised section to include specific reference to 40 CFR 81.305. 

This is the citation to attainment status designations of California. 

228 224 Section renumbered. 

229 N/A Added “plantwide applicability limit” definition taken verbatim from Rule 

213. 

230 225 Section renumbered. 

231 N/A Added “PM2.5” definition consistent with PM2.5 NSR Implementation 

Rule. 

232-233 226-227 Sections renumbered. 

234 228 Revised “precursor” definition consistent with PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule. PM2.5 and Ammonia included in definition. 

235 229 Section renumbered and revised section references. 

236 N/A Added “Project” definition. This term is used where only the emissions 

units associated with the permit application are included for 

determining whether offsets triggers are exceeded, the quantity of 

offsets required pursuant to Section 413.5.a or whether exemptions 

apply (Sections 111 & 113). 

237 230 Section renumbered. 

N/A 231 Removed definition. Peaking Power Plants emission increase 

calculated in the calculations procedures rather than a separate 

section. 

238 232 Section renumbered. 

N/A 233 Removed definition. “Reactive Organic Compound” replaced with 

“Volatile Organic Compound” for rule consistency. “Volatile Organic 

Compound” defined in Rule 101 – General Provisions and Definitions.

239 234 Section renumbered. 

240 N/A Added “regulated air pollutant” definition as a replacement to prior term 

"affected pollutants". This is also similar to 40 CFR 51, Appendix S, 

Section II.A.31 but with included references to designations under the 

Federal Clean Air Act or California Health and Safety Code. 

N/A 235 Removed definition. Requirements moved to replacement equipment 

exemption. See section 114. 

241 236 Section renumbered. 

242 N/A Added “Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area for PM2.5” consistent 

with PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 24 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

243 237 Revised the term “affected pollutants” to “regulated air pollutants” for 

rule consistency. 

244 238 Section renumbered. 

301 Same Revised the term “affected pollutant” to “regulated air pollutants for rule 

consistency and section references revised to new calculation 

procedures section. BACT is triggered when an emissions change 

would result in an emission increase of more than the levels

specified. This is consistent with the ’91 language. 

301.1 Same Changed requirements to 0 lb/day for VOC, NOx, SOx, and PM10 and 

to reinstate the requirements from the 1991 rule. (SB288) 

A BACT trigger for PM2.5 of 0 lb/day is proposed to match the 

proposed BACT trigger for PM10. The BACT trigger for PM2.5 

matches the PM10 BACT trigger because PM2.5 is a subset of PM10.

302.1 Same Added PM2.5 and ammonia offset requirement on an annual basis 

of 15 tons/year and 100 tons/year respectively consistent with 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and Placer County APCD Rule 

502. Added section references for exemptions from offsets (CO 

modeling, portable and rocket engine). Revised the term “affected 

pollutants” to “regulated air pollutants” for rule consistency and 

section references revised. Revised PM10 offset requirements to 

7,300 lbs/quarter (based off 80 lbs/day) consistent with the 1991 

rule. (SB288) 

N/A 302.2 Moved section to 302.6. 

302.2 302.3 Clarified applicability of peaking power plants daily emissions offset 

trigger. Also, revised the term “affected pollutant” to “regulated air 

pollutants for rule consistency and section reference. 

302.3.a & 

302.3.b 

303.3.a & 

303.3.b 

Combined sections 302.4 and 302.5 for clarity since all relate to 

seasonality of offset provisions for the various pollutants. Also, 

changed term “reactive” to “volatile” for rule consistency, section 

references revised. 

302.3.c & 

302.3.d 

302.5 Revised to correct the quarters in which credits can be utilized and 

combined with Section 302.3 for clarity. 

302.4 N/A Moved from Section 303.2. Added additional language that offsets 

from other Districts can be used but must meet requirements of 

Section 302.8 (District, state and federal requirements). See section 

302.8. 

302.5 302.6 Revised section to clarify the intent that the emission reduction 

credits are from the same unit that was shutdown previously. Added 

reference to daily offset triggers for peaking power plants an. 

302.6 N/A Added language that emission offsets from other air districts must 

meet District rules and regulations, state and federal requirements. 

The offset ratio of the levels specified in Section 303 shall be applied to 

these offsets. 

302.9 N/A Moved from section 303.3. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 25 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

302.10 N/A Added section to limit PM2.5 and precursors to PM2.5 offsets for major 

stationary sources or major modifications come from within the 

boundaries of the Sacramento Nonattainment Area for PM2.5. 

303 Same Added language referring to offsets required calculation and to explain 

the consolidated emission offset ratio table. 

303.1 Same Revised offset ratios consistent with the ’91 Rule due to SB288 

requirements. Note that the proposed offset ratios are 0.1 lower than 

the '91 Rule because the '91 Rule included a funding mechanism for 

the Community Bank, subsequently moved to Rule 204 - Emission 

Reduction Credits. Consolidated emission offset tables, and added 

PM2.5 ratios (and ammonia placeholder if needed) consistent with 

proposed PM10 offset ratios. 

Offset ratios for nonattainment pollutants for greater than 15-mile but 

within 50-mile radius and more than 50-mile radius are increased to 2.0 

to 1.0 consistent with the 1991 rule and the 1984 SIP approved NSR 

rule. (SB288) 

N/A 303.1.a Removed section. Consolidated information into section 303.1. 

303.2 303.1.b Consolidated Section 303.3 into this Section since the offset ratios for 

both referenced rules are identical. Added PM2.5 and ammonia to 

table consistent with PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. Revised table 

to clarify the ratios apply to offsets obtained from Rule 205, Community 

Bank and Priority Reserve Bank. Also, changed term “reactive” to 

“volatile” for rule consistency, section references revised and section 

renumbered. 

N/A 303.1.c Consolidated into Section 303.1.b. 

N/A 303.2 Moved to section 302.6.a for clarity. 

N/A 303.3 Moved to section 302.10 for clarity. 

304 Same Clarified section does not apply to PM2.5 and changed term “reactive” 

to “volatile” for rule consistency. 

305 N/A Added PM2.5 interpollutant emission offset ratios consistent with 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule. Ratios are set for NOx and SOx 

unless a different offset ratio is established and approved by EPA into 

the SIP. Other pollutants are not allowed but have option to be added 

later if established in the attainment demonstration and approved into 

the SIP. 

306-308 305-307 Sections renumbered. 

400 Same Section references revised. 

401 Same Added language consistent to incorporate the exemption previously 

provided in Rule 213 and made more specific the appropriate Clean Air 

Act section reference. 

403 Same U.S. EPA “Guidelines on Air Quality Models” section reference revised.

405-407 Same Revised section references. 

408 Same Reinstated the public comment provisions for BACT determination 

previously required by the 1991 rule. New BACT determinations that 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 26 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

are not in the BACT Policy shall be made available for public comment. 

 (SB288) 

409.2 Same Revised section reference. 

410.2a,b Same Added daily, quarterly emissions limitations for all regulated air 

pollutants. Annual emissions limitations are required for PM2.5 and 

any other air pollutants for which the source is major. The daily 

emissions limitations are applicable to the temporary source 

exemption, replacement equipment exemption, peaking power plants 

offset trigger, and units not required to install BACT pursuant to 

Section 413.2. 

410.2d N/A Added language removed from section 214.4. 

410.3c Same Removed term “new” that introduces ambiguity and clarified 

enforceable “as a practical matter” with 40 CFR Part 51.165 section 

(a)(1)((vi)(E)(2).. 

410.3d Same Revised to clarify reference is to the owner or operator of the permitted 

stationary source. 

410.3f N/A Added requirement that offsets must be surrendered prior to 

commencing operation and that offsets must be maintained throughout 

operation consistent with 40 CFR Part 51.165. 

412 Same Revised to include offset section as stated. 

413 Same Revised section to include all calculation procedures used in 

exemptions, definitions and standards. 

413.1 N/A Clarified the increase in potential to emit is “for the project” when 

determining notification. 

413.2 N/A Added Emissions Increase section for BACT on a daily emissions 

basis and clarified BACT determination is performed separately for 

each emissions unit. 

413.3 N/A Added Emissions Increase section for Temporary Sources and 

replacing of air pollution control equipment with new control equipment 

determinations. This calculation procedure differs from Section 413.4 

in that it includes only emissions units associated with the project, not 

all of the emissions units at the stationary source. 

413.4 N/A Added offset trigger calculation section. Offsets are triggered if the 

calculation exceeds the offsets trigger levels in Section 302. . 

413.4a N/A Added offsets trigger calculation for SOx, PM10 and CO and PM2.5. 

Emissions are excluded for emissions units where the latest Authority 

to Construct/Permit to Operate was issued before January 1, 1977. 

For equipment installed after January 1, 1977, offsets are calculated as 

the sum of the potential to emit for all units at the stationary source. 

For equipment installed prior to January 1, 1977 and modified after, 

offsets are calculated only the post ’77 increase for those emissions 

units (potential to emit minus Historic Potential Emissions). The trigger 

is calculated using daily emissions for peaking power plants, quarterly 

emissions for SOx, PM10, and CO, and yearly for PM2.5. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 27 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

413.4b N/A Added offset trigger calculation for VOC and NOx (except when 

calculating for Section 303.2). VOC and NOx offsets required to be 

calculated using daily or quarterly emissions. The daily calculation 

procedure is added consistent with the daily offset triggers in Section 

302.2. 

413.4c N/A Added offset trigger calculation for VOC and NOx for purposes of 

Section 302.2. This section is similar to Section 413.4a where the 

calculation only sums the emissions for equipment installed after ’77 

and only post ’77 emission increases for equipment installed before ’77 

that has been modified after. 

413.5a,b N/A Added section to calculate emissions offsets required by Section 302. 

Offsets are equal to sum of all increases of the potential to emit – 

Historic Potential Emissions for the emissions units associated with a 

project times the appropriate offset ratio. Calculations performed 

separately for each pollutant for each calendar quarterly or where 

required on an annual basis. Annual basis added pre PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule. 

N/A 414-419 Removed sections. All calculation procedures moved to Section 413.

414 420 Added requirements to allow sources to apply for a Plantwide 

Applicability Limit. Language taken from Rule 213. 

415 N/A Section renumbered. 

Rule 214 – Federal New Source Review 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

(This is a new rule. This table articulates the rationale for 

differences from the Proposed Rule 202 Language.) 

101 Same Added language to clarify Rule 214 applies to all permitting actions at 

major sources which includes all modifications. This Rule 214 will be 

submitted as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan to 

replace the 1984 version of Rule 202 which will be removed from the 

SIP. This rule applies to major sources subject to federal New Source 

Review requirements. 

102 Same Added language the Rule 214 only applies to emissions units located 

at major stationary sources. Also, clarified rule applicability applies to 

major agricultural sources. 

N/A 111 Eliminated exemption which does not apply to major sources or 

modifications at major sources. 

111 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

113 Same Removed CO from exemption. Because Sacramento County has 

attained the CO NAAQS, they are now regulated by Rule 203, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

114 Same Revised exemption applicability to minor modification at major source, 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 28 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

(This is a new rule. This table articulates the rationale for 

differences from the Proposed Rule 202 Language.) 

see Section 237. Removed CO from definition because Sacramento 

has attained the NAAQS for CO. CO regulated by Rule 203, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

117 N/A Added exemption from PM10 requirements which takes effect upon redesignation of Sacramento County as attainment for the federal PM10 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 

203 Same Revised section to refer only to national ambient air quality standards 

established pursuant to Clean Air Act Sections 108 or 109. 

223 Same Removed references to attainment pollutants: CO, and Pb. 

N/A 224.5 Removed CO from definition. CO regulated by Rule 203, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration. 

224.5 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

227 Same Removed reference to California Health and Safety Code. 

230-231 Same Removed references to the California Code of Regulations which are 

not federal requirements. 

N/A 232 Removed definition. Term no longer used due to eliminated temporary 

source exemption. 

232 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

233 Same Added language excluding fugitive emissions from potential to emit 

unless the source belongs to one of the categories of stationary 

sources included in Rule 207. This is consistent with 40 CFR 51.165 

but different from Rule 202 that requires fugitive emissions in potential 

to emit. 

N/A 244 Removed “temporary source” definition. Term no longer used due to 

eliminated of temporary source exemption. 

244 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

301 Same Removed last sentence because it is not necessary if BACT required 

for all emission increases. 

301.1 Same Removed Pb and CO because Sacramento has attained the NAAQS 

for these pollutants. BACT will still be required for these pollutants 

under PSD requirements. 

302.1 Same Removed section references to CO modeling and portable equipment 

offset provisions that have been removed from the rule. See sections 

302.7 and 302.8. 

302.1a N/A Offset thresholds are expressed on a quarterly basis because although 

the 1984 SIP rule required offsets to be provided on a yearly basis, 

they required seasonality protection. Since the quarterly offsets 

requirements for state purposes do not match calendar quarters, the 

thresholds are specified on a quarterly basis. PM2.5 is expressed on a 

yearly basis because it was not regulated by the 1984 SIP rule. The 

offset thresholds are the major source trigger levels for VOC and NOx. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 29 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

(This is a new rule. This table articulates the rationale for 

differences from the Proposed Rule 202 Language.) 

 The major source threshold for PM10 is 100 tpy, but because the 

offset threshold in the 1984 was 150 lbs/day as TSP, which equates to 

80 lb/day PM10, or 7,300 lbs/quarter. The threshold for SOx is based 

on the 1984 SIP rule threshold of 250 lbs/day, expressed quarterly. 

The PM2.5 offset threshold is from 40 CFR Part 51.165 section 

(a)(1)(iv). 

302.1b N/A This section is to be used for all modifications, both major and minor 

modifications at a major stationary source. Minor modifications at 

major stationary sources are included because these were subject to 

the 1984 rule.. Offset thresholds are expressed on a quarterly basis 

because although the 1984 SIP rule required offsets to be provided on 

a yearly basis, they required seasonality protection. Since the quarterly 

offsets requirements for state purposes do not match calendar 

quarters, the thresholds are specified on a quarterly basis. PM2.5 is 

expressed on a yearly basis because it was not regulated by the 1984 

SIP rule. The offset thresholds are the major source trigger levels for 

VOC and NOx because the significant levels would be higher than the 

thresholds currently required resulting in a relaxation. The other 

modification offset threshold match the significant levels of 40 CFR 

Part 51.165 section (a)(1)(x)(A). The significant threshold for PM10 is 

15 tpy, but because the offset threshold in the 1984 was 150 lbs/day as 

TSP, which equates to 80 lb/day PM10, or 7,300 lbs/quarter. The 

threshold for SOx is based on the significant level of 40 tpy (20,000 

lbs/quarter) and PM2.5. The PM2.5 threshold is 10 tpy consistent with 

40 CFR Part 51.165 section (a)(1)(x)(A). 

302.2 Same Removed CO because Sacramento has attained the NAAQS for these 

pollutants. Revised daily offset thresholds to 250 lbs/day matching the 

threshold in the 1984 rule. This is less stringent than Rule 202 at 150 

lbs/day matching the threshold in the 1991 rule.. 

302.3 Same Removed CO because Sacramento has attained the NAAQS for these 

pollutants of this pollutant. 

N/A 302.7 Removed section. CO modeling section not required because CO is 

removed from the rule. CO modeling may still be required by PSD. 

302.7 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

N/A 302.8 Removed section. Section not federal requirement. 

302.8 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

303 Same Revised language including only offset ratios applicable for major 

stationary sources (which include all modifications). 

303.1 Same Removed references to minor sources and offset ratio applicable only 

to minor sources. Deleted the reference to Sacramento Valley 

because it is not defined in Rule 214 and is unnecessary because 

credits must come from within the federal nonattainment areas. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 30 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

(This is a new rule. This table articulates the rationale for 

differences from the Proposed Rule 202 Language.) 

303.2 Same Removed offset ratios not applicable to major source or major 

modifications and removed language to clarify the applicability of the 

PM2.5 ratio. 

N/A 308 Removed section. Section not applicable to major sources. 

308 N/A Section number reserved to maintain section references consistent 

with Rule 202. 

402 Same Removed reference to the California Government Code which is not a 

federal requirement. 

405.1 Same Removed reference to submitting preliminary decision to California Air 

Resources Board that is not a federal requirement. 

N/A 408 Removed BACT determinations submittal to ARB that is not federal 

requirement. 

413.3 Same Removed reference to temporary source exemption. Temporary 

source exemption is not applicable for major sources. 

413.4 Same Removed reference to CO because Sacramento has attained the 

NAAQS for these pollutants. Section renumbered and revised 

section reference. 

Rule 215 – Agricultural Permit Requirements and New Agricultural Permit Review 

NEW 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

EXISTING 

SECTION 

NUMBER 

PROPOSED CHANGES 

112 Same Added language to clarify requirements of agricultural emission unit 

that is a new major stationary source or major modification complies 

with Rule 214, in addition to Rule 201 – General Permit Requirements 

and Rule 202. 

228 Same Added language to clarify requirement of offsets subject to Rule 214, in 

addition to Rule 202 and Rule 215. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 31 

Appendix B 

California HSC Section 40727.2 Matrix 

Proposed Rule 202 – New Source Review

Elements of 

Comparison 

Specific 

Provisions 

Proposed Rule 202 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 

I 

Exemptions Offset 

Requirements 

1. Emergency Equipment 

2. Temporary Equipment (limited by 

daily offset levels consistent with 

the ’91 rule) 

3. Non-major source/mod agricultural 

sources 

4. Replacement Equipment 

5. Rule Compliance 

6. Alternative Siting not required for 

sources that would not constitute a 

Federal Major Modification 

1. Replacement 

equipment 

2. Change of ownership 

3. Routine repair and 

maintenance 

4. Requires Alternative 

Siting for Federal Major 

Modifications. 

5. PM attainment, upon 

PM attainment PSD 

applies

Averaging Provisions Not Applicable Not Applicable 

Units Tons/year, lbs/day; lbs/quarter, ppm, 

grams/liter 

Tons/year 

Emissions 

Reduction 

BACT at 0 lb/day and Emissions 

Offsets 

Lowest Achievable 

Emissions Level and 

Offsets. 

Emissions Limits 

Compliance 

alternatives 

Interpollutant Emission Offsets; Air 

Quality Modeling for CO. 

Innovative Control 

Technology; Air Quality 

Modeling 

Permit Conditions Emission Unit(s) operated in 

compliance with Rule 

Emissions Limitations 

Offsets that satisfy EPA requirements 

(by meeting Rule 204) 

Federally enforceable 

permit conditions 

Offsets must be Real, 

Enforceable, Permanent, 

Quantifiable and Surplus. 

Operating Parameters Not Applicable – Required under 

other rules (Rule 201, General Permit 

Requirements) 

Monitor emissions; 

Recordkeeping for hours 

of operations, throughput, 

and emissions. 

Work Practice 

Requirements 

Not Applicable – Required under 

other rules (Rule 201, General Permit 

Requirements) 

Monitor emissions; 

Recordkeeping for hours 

of operations, throughput, 

and emissions. 

Recordkeeping Not Applicable – Required under 

other rules (Rule 201, General Permit 

Requirements) 

Monitor emissions; 

Recordkeeping for hours 

of operations, throughput, 

and emissions. 

Monitoring/Records 

Frequency Not Applicable Annual 

Test Methods Not Applicable Continuous emission 

monitoring (CEM); testing 

to verify compliance with 

emission limits. 

Monitoring/Testing 

Frequency Not Applicable Continuous for CEM; 

Annual or more frequent 

for source testing. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 32 

 California HSC Section 40727.2 Matrix 

Proposed Rule 214 – Federal New Source Review

Elements of 

Comparison 

Specific 

Provisions 

Proposed Rule 214 40 CFR Part 51, 

Subpart I 

Exemptions Offset 

Requirements 

1. Emergency Equipment 

2. Non-major source/mod 

agricultural sources 

3. Replacement Equipment 

4. Rule Compliance 

5. Alternative Siting 

6. PM Attainment 

1. Replacement 

equipment 

2. Change of ownership 

3. Routine repair and 

maintenance 

4. 

5. PM attainment, upon 

PM attainment PSD 

applies 

Averaging Provisions Not Applicable Not Applicable 

Units Tons/year, lbs/day; lbs/quarter, 

ppm, grams/liter 

Tons/year 

Emissions 

Reduction 

BACT at 0 lb/day and Emissions 

Offsets 

Lowest Achievable 

Emissions Level and 

Offsets. 

Emissions Limits 

Compliance 

alternatives 

Interpollutant Emission Offsets; Innovative Control

Technology; Air Quality 

Modeling 

Permit Conditions Emission Unit(s) operated in 

compliance with Rule 

Emissions Limitations 

Offsets that satisfy EPA requirements 

(by meeting Rule 204) 

Federally enforceable 

permit conditions 

Offsets must be Real, 

Enforceable, Permanent, 

Quantifiable and Surplus. 

Operating 

Parameters 

Not Applicable – Required under 

other rules (Rule 201, General 

Permit Requirements) 

Monitor emissions; 

Recordkeeping for hours 

of operations, throughput, 

and emissions. 

Work Practice 

Requirements 

Not Applicable – Required under 

other rules (Rule 201, General 

Permit Requirements) 

Monitor emissions; 

Recordkeeping for hours 

of operations, throughput, 

and emissions. 

Recordkeeping Not Applicable – Required under 

other rules (Rule 201, General 

Permit Requirements) 

Monitor emissions; 

Recordkeeping for hours 

of operations, throughput, 

and emissions. 

Monitoring/Records 

Frequency Not Applicable Annual 

Test Methods Not Applicable Continuous emission 

monitoring (CEM); testing 

to verify compliance with 

emission limits. 

Monitoring/Testing 

Frequency Not Applicable Continuous for CEM; 

Annual or more frequent 

for source testing. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT 

REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 33 

Appendix C 

Public Comments 

Public Workshop (August 10, 2010) 

Attendees: Anitra Brosseau, Aerojet 

Jake Oosterman, Western United Dairymen 

Tina Suarez-Murias, California Air Resources Board 

Becky Wood, ATS 

Argelia Leon, Breathe CA 

Bob Hitomi, Sacramento State University 

Dick Wheaton, McCellan Business Park 

June Livingston, BERC 

Stu Husband, SMUD 

Marcus McCarthy, Dome Printing 

Rafael Aguilera, Verde Consulting Group 

Comment #1: Does the EPA consent decree focus on Sacramento or does it affect other 

areas around the nation? 

Response: The lawsuit, to which the consent decree applies, alleged that EPA failed to 

perform a nondiscretionary duty to either approve a State Implementation 

Plan or promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan for California, Idaho, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Oregon to satisfy four separate 

requirements of the Clean Air Act with regard to the 1997 NAAQS for 8-

hour ozone and fine particulate matter. SMAQMD was recognized as 

having a SIP-approved NSR rule from 1984 that does not address those 

requirements. 

Comment #2: What is the impact of the proposed amendments on the community? Are 

there public health benefits? 

Response: The proposed amendments are as stringent, and in some instances more 

stringent, than the most recent version of Rule 202. The practical impact of 

the proposed amendments will be to require more emission units to install 

the best available control and will, in some cases, require additional 

emissions offsets to be surrendered. 

Comment #3: How do offsets that are from 50 miles away benefit the community? 

Response: Emission offsets are encouraged to come from close to the source needing 

the credits however further distances are allowed with an increased ratio to 

allow an area to move towards attainment while still allowing growth. For 

distances of 50 miles and more, the ratio is proposed to be at least 2.0:1.0 

with a case by case determination that may require a higher offset ratio. 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT 

REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 34 

However, in no case shall emissions from a new or modified stationary 

source prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of any 

applicable ambient air quality standard (see Section 306 of Rule 202). This 

ensures that near source impacts do not cause health problems regardless 

of the location of the offsets. 

Comment #4: How is a new emissions unit determined? If an emissions unit is issued a 

permit before the rule is adopted, is it considered a new emissions unit? 

Response: New emissions unit definition was added in Section 226 as an emissions 

unit where less than two years has passed since the date of commencing 

operation under an issued Permit to Operate or an Authority to Construct, 

whichever is earlier. This is consistent with federal rules. However, new 

emissions units at major sources are treated differently under Section 220, 

historic actual emissions. 

Comment #5: When will the District complete an analysis to determine if ammonia will be 

considered a precursor to PM2.5? 

Response: The District is planning to complete the PM2.5 attainment demonstration 

plan in late 2012. The plan will specify whether ammonia will be 

considered a limiting precursor. In other words, it will specify whether 

ammonia emissions reductions improve PM2.5 air quality. The San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s 2008 PM2.5 plan determined 

that ammonia was not a limiting precursor within their district32. Additional 

analyses are necessary and a public process will occur as part of Plan 

development. 

Comment #6: Why did the offset ratios decrease from the 1996 adopted version of Rule 

202 as compared to the 1991 adopted version of Rule 202? 

Response: The 1996 amendments of Rule 202 decreased emission location offset 

ratios of greater than 15 miles and increased the emission location offset 

ratios for same-source. However, the lower offset ratios do not meet 

federal SIP approvability and State law requirements, therefore the offset 

ratios for distances greater than 15 miles are proposed to match the 1984 

and 1991 versions of Rule 202. 

Comment #7: Will Greenhouse Gases (GHG) be regulated? If so, how will be GHG be 

regulated? 

Response: GHG will not be regulated under New Source Review. New Source 

Review is applicable to any air pollutant for which there is a national or 

state ambient air quality standard, or precursor to such air pollutant. EPA 

 

32 “2008 PM2.5 Plan”, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, April 30, 2008, p. 

3-7 
Staff Report 

Rule 202, NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

Rule 214, FEDERAL NEW SOURCE REIVEW AND 

Rule 215, AGRICULTURAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND NEW AGRICULTURAL PERMIT 

REVIEW 

August 18, 2010 

Page 35 

chose not to set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

GHG. EPA issued a tailored GHG rule that requires GHG to be regulated 

under Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The District is 

planning on addressing GHG in the upcoming months with proposed 

amendments to Rule 203 – PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT 

DETERIORATION. 

Comment #8: How will emissions offsets function for PM2.5 from current credit 

certificates? 

Response: The District has issued PM10 credit certificates in the past. When those 

old certificates surrendered as a PM2.5 offset, staff will determine the 

appropriate fraction of the PM10 that is PM2.5, depending on the type and 

function of the emissions unit that generated the emission reduction credit. 

Comment #9: How will the District determine the ratios of PM2.5 and PM10 out of total 

particulate? 

Response: These ratios have been determined by equipment type by the California Air 

Resources Board. The District will use these ratios for determining what 

percentage of particulate matter emissions are PM2.5 and PM10. 

Comment #10: Health studies have shown that PM2.5 has a greater health impact than 

other pollutants. I would suggest a higher ratio for emissions offsets than 

the proposed 1:1 ratio for PM2.5 at all distances. 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Staff has reviewed the comments received 

in response to the proposed amendments. After consideration of these 

comments, Staff is now recommending changing the PM2.5 offset ratios to 

match the higher ratios establish for PM10.