United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

as Submitted by the California Air Resources Board

EPA’s analysis of

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s

Rule 23 – Exemptions from Permit

March 12, 2015

Prepared by Larry Maurin and Jefferson Wehling

Approved by Gerardo Rios1



### Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAP CD or District)

Submitted Rule

• Rule 23, Exemptions from Permit , was originally adopted on October 22, 1968. The r ule has been revised seven times since the last SIP-app roved version of the rule was approved by EPA on December 7, 2000. See Table 1 be low for a list of the adoption and

submittal dates for recent revisions of Rule 23. Wh ile each of these revisions was submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP, EPA has not taken action on any of these submittals. The current rule revision was adopted o n November 12, 2013 and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on May 13, 2014. While EPA can only take action on the most current submittal, we list below all of the changes made since Rule 23 was last SIP approved.

Table 1. Adoption and corresponding submittal dates

of VCAPCD Rule 23 revisions

Adoption Date Submittal Date November 11, 2003 April 26, 2005 April 13, 2004 July 19, 2004 October 12, 2004 April 26, 2005 September 12, 2006 December 29, 2006 April 8, 2008 January 10, 2010 April 12, 2011 September 27, 2011 November 12, 2013 May 13, 2014

Applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) Rule

• Rule 23, Exemptions from Permit – The SIP approved version of this rule was revised on July 9, 1996, submitted on October 18, 1996, and ap proved into the SIP on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567).

Background

Ventura County is currently classified as a serious nonattainment area for the 2008 and 1997

federal 8-hour ozone standards and attainment or un classifiable for all other National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Agricultural operations are a significant source of air pollution throughout the state of California, including Ventura County. Historically, agricultura l operations had been exempted from many regulatory requirements, including the need for air pollution permits. On September 22, 2003, California Senate Bill 700 (SB 700) became law and removed the blanket permitting exemption for agricultural sources provided under California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 42310(e) and subjected large agricultural sources t o various permit requirements for the first

time.2

VCAPCD was required to amend and adopt a number of rules to comply with the requirements of SB 700, including revisions to Rule 23. The stat e law also requires permits and emission mitigation for Large Confined Animal Facilities (LC AF) as defined by CARB.

Purposes of Rule and Descriptions of Rule Amendment s

Rule 23 – Exemptions from Permit was originally developed as part of the District’s New Source Review (NSR) permitting program. The rule identifie s processes, articles, machines, equipment, or other contrivances for which an Authority to Con struct (ATC) and/or Permit to Operate (PTO) is not required. While EPA can only act upon the mo st recent submitted version of Rule 23, we have reviewed all of the changes made since EPA las t approved Rule 23 into the Ventura County portion of the California SIP. EPA has evaluated th e following list of revisions made to the existing SIP approved version of Rule 23, compared with the submitted version of Rule 23.

1. Existing Rule 23 – Exemptions from Permit was revised as follows:

• A.4 – The exemption has been revised by adding new language to limit applicability of the exemption to safety flares rated at less than o ne million BTU per hour.

• B.4 – The exemption has been revised by adding new language to clarify that the listed types of equipment are exempted even if they are us ing “metalworking fluids, direct contact lubricants, or vanishing oils that are ‘Sup er Compliant Materials’ containing 50 grams ROC per liter of material or less, including, but not limited to, metal protecting (corrosion inhibitor application equipment) and met al treating quench tanks...”. New language was added to clarify that metal forging op erations are still subject to permit requirements. In addition, language was added to exempt the follo wing specific types of equipment using any metalworking fluid regardless of the ROC content of the fluid being used: a. Lapping b. Sinker Electrical Discharge Machining c. Carbide grinding machine tools where the machine tool manufacturer specifies the viscosity of the fluid d. Machining of aluminum or magnesium in single or multiple spindle automatic
machines

• D.1 – The exemption for aircraft has been moved to section D.2.

• D.2 – The exemption has been revised to further spe cify which type of vehicles are exempt from permitting requirements including locom otives, aircraft, marine vessels, and recreational watercraft used to transport passenger s or freight. Language was also added to clarify that any equipment mounted on a locomoti ve, aircraft or marine vessel that would otherwise require a permit under the provisio ns of the District’s Rules and Regulations is not exempted under this provision.

• D.6 – The exemption has been revised to limit appli cability to only internal combustion engines with a maximum “continuous” design power ra ting of less than 50 brake horsepower. An exemption was added for gas turbines with a rated full load output of less than 0.30 megawatts (300 kilowatts) at ISO Standard Day Conditions.

• D.7 – The exemption has been reorganized, reworded, and further clarified, and now
reads as follows: “Emergency internal combustion engines, as follows:3 a. Spark-ignited internal combustion engines used e xclusively for the emergency pumping of water for either fire protection or floo d relief. The engines may either drive pumps directly or generate electricity to dri ve pumps. Such engines may be operated for engine maintenance, b. Spark-ignited emergency internal combustion engi nes used only when electrical power line or natural gas service fails. Such engines may be operated for engine maintenance, and c. Portable engines used for emergency purposes. An engine powering a generator connected to a facility's electrical grid in prepar ation for a future emergency shall not be considered a portable emergency engine.”

• F.6 – The exemption for solvent cleaning equipment or operations listed under F.6 in the approved SIP has been removed since it expired on J uly 9, 1997. The unrelated exemption for non-refillable aerosol cans, formerly listed under F.10.b and d, F.11.a and b, F.12, F.13, F.15, F.20, and F.22 in the approved SIP version of Rule 23, have now
been combined and listed under F.6.

• F.10 – The exemption was expanded to include genera l cleaning operations rather than only solvent cleaning operations, as follows: a. The exemption was revised from “cleaning agents that contain two percent or less organic solvent, by weight, as used or applied ” to “cleaning agents certified by the SCAQMD as Clean Air Solvents.” The term “Cl ean Air Solvents” is not defined in any Ventura rule, but is defined in Sout h Coast AQMD Rule 102, Definitions, which is SIP approved. b. The exemption was revised from “Non-refillable a erosol cleaning products” to “Cleaning agents that contain no more than 25 grams per liter of ROC as used or applied, and no more than 5 percent by weight combi ned of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichlo roethane, carbon tetrachloride,
and chloroform.” c. No changes were made to exemption F.10.c. d. The exemption has been revised to specify “solve nt cleaning operations, including cold cleaners, vapor degreasers, wipe cle aning, dip cleaning and flush cleaning,” rather than “cleaning activities.” In ad dition the exemption has been revised from “cleaning agents that contain two perc ent or less organic solvent by weight as used or applied, aerosol products, and co ld cleaners included in subsection c above” to “activities exempted by subs ections a, b, and c, above.”

• F.12 – The exemption was clarified to include ‘seal ant’ operations in addition to adhesive operations.

• F.14 – The usage allowed by the exemption was annua lized by revising “20 gallons of polyester resin materials each month” to read “240 gallons of polyester resin materials over a rolling period of 12 consecutive calendar mo nths.”

• F.23 – The exemption has been narrowed to limit app licability to soil aeration projects for soils contaminated with gasoline, diesel fuel, or jet fuel.

• J.10 – The exemption has been revised to apply only to cooling towers and ponds that are not in contact with contaminated process water.

• J.12 – The exemption was reworded to update the nam es of responsible regulatory agencies. The former agency “Advisory Council on At omic Energy Development and Radiation Protection” has now been replaced by the “California Energy Commission and4

the California Department of Health Services.” The “United States Atomic Energy Commission” is now the “United States Nuclear Regul atory Commission.”

2. The following new exemptions were added to Rule 23 and are listed by categorization:

A. Equipment or processes that are exempted from a cor responding VCAPCD prohibitory rule which requires emission controls

• D.6 – Gas turbines with a rated full load output of less than 0.30 megawatts (300 kilowatts) at ISO Standard Day Conditions (Rule 73. 23).

• F.20 – Oilfield wastewater sumps, pits, or ponds, w here the ROC content of the wastewater entering the sump, pit or pond is less t han 5 milligrams per liter (Rule 71.4).

B. Sources with insignificant emissions

• E.6 – Smokehouses for food preparation in which the maximum horizontal inside cross-sectional area does not exceed 2 square meter s (21.5 square feet).

• E.7 – Smokehouses that use liquid smoke exclusively and are completely enclosed. To qualify, a smokehouse must vent to neither a con trol device nor the atmosphere.

• E.8 – Confection cookers where products are edible and intended for human consumption.

• E.9 – Grinding, blending or packaging equipment use d exclusively for tea, cocoa, roasted coffee, flavor, fragrance extraction, dried flowers, or spices, and control equipment used exclusively with such equipment, pro vided no organic solvents are
used.

• E.10 – Equipment used for the purpose of preparing food for human consumption, excluding conveyorized charbroilers and coffee roas ting equipment with a maximum capacity of greater than 25 pounds, in either eatin g establishments or retail
establishments.

• E.11 – Equipment used to produce noodles, macaroni, pasta, food mixes or drink mixes, and control equipment used exclusively with such equipment, where products are edible and intended for human consumption, prov ided no organic solvents are used. Not included are storage bins located outside buildings and combustion equipment not exempt pursuant to Subsection C.1 of this rule.

• E.12 – Non-retail cooking kettles, excluding deep-f rying equipment, where the product is edible and intended for human consumptio n.

• E.13 – Coffee roasting equipment with a maximum cap acity of 25 pounds or less.

• E.14 – Ovens, mixers, scales, blenders used in bake ries, and control equipment used exclusively with such equipment, where products are edible and intended for human consumption and where the total production is less than 1,000 pounds of product per operating day.

• I.13 – Wax burnout kilns with an internal volume of 0.2 cubic meters (7.0 cubic feet) or less and a rated capacity of less than one milli on BTUs per hour.

• J.3 – Fuel cells that use phosphoric acid, molten c arbonate, proton exchange membrane or solid oxide technologies.5

• J.15 – Equipment used exclusively to generate ozone and associated ozone destruction equipment for the treatment of cooling tower water or for water treatment

processes.

C. Equipment or operations which are not subject to NS R program requirements because they are not stationary sources

• D.9 – Portable internal combustion engines, includi ng any turbines qualified as military technical support equipment under Health a nd Safety Code Section 41754, used pursuant to registration in the California Sta tewide Portable Engine Registration Program (PERP) under Health and Safety Code Section 41753.

D. Agricultural source exemptions added pursuant to SB 700 and CARB definition of LCAF (CH&SC Section 86500)

• J.16 – This provision was added to read as follows:

Emission units used exclusively in agricultural ope rations, except where the total actual annual emissions, excluding fugitive PM 10 emissions, from an agricultural source is equal to or greater than 50 percent of an y of the following federal major

source thresholds:

Pollutant Threshold (Tons Per Year)

Any single HAP 10
Combination of HAPs 25 CO, PM10, or SOx 100 Greenhouse Gases (CO2e) (effective July 1, 2011) 1 00,000 Greenhouse Gases (CO2e) (until July 1, 2011) No Ap plicable Threshold

Attainment / Nonattainment Threshold (TPY) Classification (Ozone) (ROC, NOx) Attainment, Marginal, or Moderate 100
Serious 50
Severe 25
Extreme 10

This provision shall not exempt any large confined animal facility or any major source or any major modification to a major source required to be issued a permit pursuant to Title I (42 U.S.C. Sec 7401 et seq.) or Title V (42 U.S.C. Sec 7661 et seq.) For the purpose of this subsection, agricultu ral operations are operations conducted in the raising of fowl or animals or the production of the products of the soil, including crops, orchard fruits, trees, vines , rose bushes, ornamental plants, floricultural crops, and other horticultural crops. An agricultural source includes all emissions units that are not exempt pursuant to oth er provisions of this rule which are used in agricultural operations located on contiguo us property under common ownership or control.6 For the purposes of this subsection a “large confin ed animal facility” is defined as
follows: (i) 1,000 milk-producing dairy cows;

(ii) 3,500 beef cattle; (iii) 7,500 calves, heifers or other cattle; (iv) 650,000 chickens other than laying hens; (v) 650,000 laying hens; (vi) 650,000 ducks; (vii) 100,000 turkeys; (viii) 3,000 swine; (ix) 2,500 horses; (x) 15,000 sheep, lambs, or goats; or (xi) 30,000 rabbits or other animals.

Rule Evaluation

EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 23.

1. Enforceability – Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110(a) (2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally
enforceable.
2. New Source Review Program Requirements – 40 CFR part 51, Subpart I – Review of New Sources and Modifications, which allo ws permit authorities to exempt small sources from permit requirements if re gulating those sources is not necessary for the area to attain or maintain any NA AQS.
3. Anti-Backsliding − CAA Section 110(l) restricts ce rtain SIP revisions that would relax existing SIP-approved requirements if they wo uld interfere with the District’s ability to attain or maintain attainment of a NAAQS.

The Clean Air Act through 40 CFR 51.160 – 51.165 re quires States (Districts in California) to establish a program for preconstruction review of n ew or modified major stationary sources (New Source Review – NSR), including procedures for authorizing construction of such sources. (40 CFR 51.160(a)). The District issues permits ref erred to as Authority to Construct (ATC) to

authorize the construction of new and modified sour ces.

Rules 10 – Permits Required , 23 – Exemptions from Permit , and 26 – New Source Review are the major components of VCAPCD’s NSR program. R ule 10 requires sources to obtain an ATC for construction and PTO for operatio n of sources as part of NSR. Rule 23 identifies what sources are not required to obtain an ATC and/or PTO. Rule 26 establishes the requirements for new and modified s tationary sources to ensure that the operation of such sources does not interfere with t he attainment or maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards. Under the federal NS R program, all major stationary sources (ones with potential emissions over specifi ed thresholds) are required to obtain an ATC prior to construction. This technical support d ocument discusses only Rule 23 which we are evaluating for approval into the Ventu ra County portion of the California

SIP.7

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160(e), a district has flexib ility to determine which types and sizes of minor sources (non-major) are required to obtain an ATC as necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in accordan ce with their SIP approved attainment plan.

Section 110(l) states: “Each revision to an impleme ntation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reason able notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a pla n if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and re asonable further progress (as defined in Section 7501 of this title), or any other applicabl e requirement of this chapter.” With respect to the procedural requirements of CAA Section 110(l), based on our review of the public process documentation included in the May 13, 2014 submitta l, we find that VCAPCD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunit y for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of Rule 23. The remaining Se ction 110(l) criteria are evaluated below.

Rule 23
– Exemptions from Permit – Numerous revisions have been made to Rule 23,

which are described above in the section titled “Pu rposes of Rule and Descriptions of Rule Amendments”. These revisions include not only administrative changes to the rule such as re-numbering and updating the format, but a lso the addition of general provisions, revisions, deletions and additions to t he types of equipment exempted from permit requirements. The administrative changes to the rule generally provide additional clarity to the rule and do not affect the stringenc y of the District’s NSR program and therefore do not require further evaluation. The ne w general provisions, revisions, and additions to the exemptions found in the current SI P-approved rule version of Rule 23 are evaluated below as necessary to further explain why the changes are acceptable.

1. Revision of Existing Rule 23 Exemptions

• The revision to section A.4 puts a new restriction on maximum exempt flare capacity. This revision narrows the existing exemption, thus providing a strengthening of the SIP. We find this revision acceptable.

• The exemption in section B.4 for equipment used in various types of machining of various materials was revised in three significant ways. First new language was added to clarify that the existing exemption applies to any of the equipment used with metalworking fluids, direct contact lubricants, or vanishing oils, if the materials are Super Compliant Materials containing 50 grams ROC per lit er of material or less. Second, new language was added to clarify that this new ROC con tent limit does not apply to any metalworking fluid, if used in lapping, sinker elec trical discharge machining, carbide grinding machine tools where the machine tool manuf acturer specifies the viscosity of the fluid, and machining of aluminum or magnesium in si ngle or multiple spindle automatic machines. Third, new language was added to clarify that forging operations remain subject to permit requirements. Revisions place res trictions on the ROC content of these fluids when used by certain types of equipment. Sin ce the existing exemption had no limits on fluids, lubricants, or oils used with the se types of equipment, the revisions narrow the existing exemption and provides a streng thening of the SIP. Therefore we find these revisions acceptable.8

• The revisions to section D.2 more specifically iden tify the type of vehicles which are exempt from permit requirements to include locomoti ves, aircraft, marine vessels and
recreational watercraft which are not considered st ationary sources under the NSR program. The new language also clarifies that any e quipment mounted on these vehicles that would otherwise require a permit is not exempt ed. These revisions do not relax the requirements of the existing SIP because they merel y clarify which “vehicles” are exempt from permit requirements.

• The revisions to section F.6 consolidate exemptions of nonrefillable aerosol cans formerly listed under F.10.b and d, F.11.a and b, F .12, F.13, F.15, F.20, and F.22 in the approved SIP version of Rule 23. EPA notes that the existing exemptions for nonrefillable aerosol cans are also exempted from c orresponding VCAPCD prohibitory Rules 74.02, 74.03, 74.12, 74.13, 74.18, 74.24, 74. 24.1, or 74.30. Consolidation of these exemptions make the SIP no less stringent.

• Several revisions were made to section F.10, which provides exemptions for specified cleaning operations and materials. F.10.a changes t he basis for exempting cleaning agents from those containing 2% or less organic solvent by weight to any cleaning agent certified by South Coast Air Quality Management Dis trict (SCAQMD) as a Clean Air Solvent. A Clean Air Solvent is defined in SCAQMD R ule 102 as a VOC-containing material used to perform solvent cleaning, solvent finishing, or surface preparation operations or activities which: a. Contains no more than twenty-five (25) grams of VOC per liter of material, as applied; b. Has a VOC composite partial vapor pressure less than 5 mm Hg at 20°C (68°F); c. Reacts to form ozone at a rate not exceeding th at of toluene; d. Contains no compounds classified as Hazardous A ir Pollutants (HAPs) by the Federal Clean Air Act, or Ozone Depleting Compounds (ODCs) and Global Warming Compounds (GWCs) as defined by the District ; and e. Has been certified by the District to meet the criteria stated in (a) through (d) according to test methods and procedures approved b y the District. Pursuant to the definition in SCAQMD Rule 102, a C lean Air Solvent Certificate is a certificate issued by the District to a manufacture r, distributor, or facility for a specified product or class of products that meets the criteri a for a Clean Air Solvent.
Section F.10.b adds additional restrictions to the exemption for cleaning agents consistent with the exemption provided in VCAPCD Rule 74.06 – Surface Cleaning and Degreasing. In addition to a limit on VOC content of no more t han 25g/L, a cleaning agent must also contain no more than 5 percent by w eight combined of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, 1,1 ,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform. These additional requirements for e xemption from permit make the SIP more stringent. F10.d has also been modified to fur ther specify which cleaning activities are exempt from permit requirements. This revision serves to clarify the exemption.

• F.12 has been revised to expand the existing exempt ion for adhesive operations to also include sealants operations. In Rule 74.20 – Adhesives and Sealants , sealants are defined as a subset of adhesives. Therefore, the addition o f the term “sealant” to the exemption clarifies the types of adhesive operations which ar e exempt from permit requirements. This revision clarifies the existing exemption and has no effect on its stringency.9

• F.14 has been revised to allow exempt polyester res in operations to use up to 240 gallons of polyester resin materials over a rolling period of 12 consecutive calendar months rather than 20 gallons each month. According to the District, the repair of a large boat may require more than 20 gallons of materials in a single month. Thus the exemption has been revised to provide boatyards flexibility to ma ke an occasional large repair, but still maintain an equivalent annual usage limit. This rev ision has no effect on stringency of the rule because it simply annualizes the existing exempt usage limits of polyester resin
materials.

• F.23 was revised to limit applicability only to aer ation of soils contaminated with gasoline, diesel fuel, or jet fuel. This revision n arrows the existing exemption, thus providing a strengthening of the SIP. We find this revision acceptable. In addition, the cross-references to the exempt provisions listed in subsection C of Rule 74.29 – Soil Decontamination Operations have been updated to eliminate the exemption for p rojects located further than 1,000 feet from the outer boun dary of a school and with emissions of less than 200 pounds of ROCs per rolling twelve mon th period. According to VCAPCD, this exemption was deleted because it has never bee n used. This revision has no effect on the stringency of the exemption because it simply u pdates the cross-references to another
District rule.

All of the revisions made to existing exemptions in Rule 23 are acceptable in accordance
with the three rule evaluation criteria outlined ab ove. The revisions either clarify existing exemptions, having no effect on stringency, or sign ificantly narrow an existing exemption. In no case is there a significant relaxation of any ex emption which has been revised in Rule 23.

2. Addition of New Exemptions not included in current SIP-approved rule

In the “Purpose of Rule and Description of Rule Ame ndments” section of this document we grouped all new exemptions into 4 groups according to the basis for the exemption. The discussion of the impact and approvability of these changes are provided below utilizing the same 4 groupings.

A. Equipment or processes that are exempted from a cor responding VCAPCD prohibitory rule which requires emission controls Under this grouping we have included equipment or p rocesses that are exempted from prohibitory rule requirements due to output, size, low emissions or type of fuel used. These exemptions in such rules are typically based on a district’s determination, made during the rule adoption process, that it is not re asonable to subject such sources to control requirements because it is not cost-effecti ve. EPA considers the District’s decision to establish permit exemption thresholds t hat mirror prohibitory rule applicability or exemption thresholds to be reasona ble because these emission units are not subject to any emission control requirements. B ecause no additional emission reductions would occur if such sources were require d to obtain an ATC, the addition of these exemptions has no effect on the District’s ab ility to attain or maintain any NAAQS and the exemptions are therefore approvable.

B. Sources that have insignificant or de minimus emiss ions10

After review of the sources listed in this category , EPA concurs with the District that the listed sources have very low levels of emissions du e to the type of process (e.g. mechanical or physical processes) and that they can be classified as insignificant emissions and/or they are equipment or activities t hat have been identified by EPA as trivial in EPA’s guidance document entitled “EPA Wh ite Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications” (See At tachment #11). Exempting these types of sources from permit requirements is consis tent with the flexibility allowed to states to exempt from permit requirements sources t hat are not likely to interfere with their ability to attain and maintain any NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.160(e).

C. Equipment or operations which are not subject to NS R program requirements because they are not stationary sources 40 CFR 51.160(a) states that a NSR program must app ly to “the construction or modification of a facility, building, structure or installation... .” NSR programs do not apply to mobile sources (including portable equipme nt) or other activities that have been specifically excluded such as routine repairs or ma intenance. Therefore EPA finds that the new exemptions for equipment not subject to the NSR program is acceptable.

D. Agricultural source exemptions added pursuant to SB 700 and CARB definition of Large Confined Animal Facility (LCAF) (CH&SC Sectio n 86500) Before SB 700 was adopted in 2003, air districts in California were prohibited by state law from requiring permits for pollutants emitted f rom agricultural sources. Because this prohibition existed in state law (CH&SC 42310(e)), most districts did not provide specific exemptions for agricultural sources from t he requirement to obtain an ATC and/or PTO in their local permit exemption rule. SB 700 ended the prohibition contained in CH&SC 42310(e). As part of this rule revision, t he District has added new language to implement revised state law under SB 700 by adding the following specific exemption thresholds for agricultural sources:

• J.16 provides a new exemption for emission units us ed exclusively in agricultural operations. This exemption applies only to such uni ts where the total actual annual emissions, excluding fugitive PM 10 emissions, from an agricultural source is less tha n 50 percent of any of the listed federal major sourc e thresholds. Language is included to clarify that this exemption does not apply to an y LCAF (as defined in the provision) or any federal major source or major mod ification to a major source which requires a permit pursuant to Title I or Title V of the Clean Air Act. The thresholds
for what constitutes a LCAF are based on the defini tion developed by CARB under
state law. CARB based the definition of LCAF on the number of animals housed daily at the facility and mainly focused the determ ination on air emission impacts from these sources in the San Joaquin Valley and So uth Coast (Los Angeles region)
which are both extreme nonattainment areas for ozon e and for which the major source threshold is 10 tpy for ozone precursors (VOC and N O x ). As such, the size cuts established in CARB’s LCAF definition correspond to VOC emissions (i.e., the predominant ozone precursor emitted by such facilit ies) of less than 10 tpy. See page11 33 of CARB’s Staff Report: Initial Statement of Rea sons for Rulemaking, release date May 6, 2005, prepared in connection with devel oping the definition for LCAF.

Based on these limitations, we are proposing to fin d that the new minor agricultural source exemption satisfies CAA Section 110(a)(2) an d 40 CFR 51.160(e). The new exemption is enforceable and consistent with VCAPCD ’s flexibility to identify which sources are subject to and/or exempt from permit re quirements.

CAA Section 110(l) Evaluation of Section J.16 of Ru le 23

We have also evaluated section J.16 of Rule 23 for consistency with CAA Section 110(l). The new permitting exemption for certain new or mod ified minor agricultural sources

would allow such new sources and modifications to a void new source review, and the related air quality evaluations and control technol ogy review. However, we find that the exemption would not interfere with reasonable furth er progress and attainment of any of the NAAQS in Ventura County or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. As discussed further in the paragraphs that follow, th is is because of the limited nature of the exemption, the presence of other regulatory control s for exempt agricultural sources, the low background concentrations for the NAAQS polluta nts in Ventura County other than ozone, and the fact that the submitted ozone plan f or the county does not rely on NSR controls for minor agricultural sources and that th e downward trend in ozone precursor emissions in Ventura County is predicted to continu e well into the future.

First, with respect to the limited nature of the ex emption, we note that, as to ozone precursors, the exemption applies only to new or mo dified agricultural sources with actual emissions less than 12.5 tpy (including fugi tive emissions) based on EPA’s “antibacksliding” regulations governing the transition f rom the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and under which NSR require ments linked to the area’s

classification for the now-revoked 1-hour ozone con tinue to apply in areas, such as Ventura County, that are designated nonattainment f or the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Ventura County’s classification for the now-revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS is “severe,” and 50% of the corresponding major source threshold (25 tpy) is 12.5 tpy.

The exemption is further limited by excluding LCAF that are defined in terms that would generally trigger the permit requirement at emissio ns levels less than 12.5 tpy of VOC. For instance, for dairy facilities, LCAF is defined as 1,000 milk-producing dairy cows and, based on CARB estimates presented in the CARB staff report cited above, a 1,000- cow dairy corresponds to VOC emissions of approxima tely 7.2 tpy. Thus, the emissions from exempt new or modified minor agricultural sour ces would be minimal and the foregone emissions reductions that might theoretica lly been applied to such sources

would be even less.12

Second, certain exempt new or modified agricultural sources would be subject to controls in other regulations that would serve to limit the potential for significant emissions impacts from such sources. These regulations includ e Ventura County APCD regulation V (“Orchard Heaters”), including 5 rules approved a t different times but the more recent of which (Rule 80 – “Permits”) was approved by EPA at 52 FR 12522 (April 17, 1987); Ventura County APCD Rule 56 (“Open Burning”), last approved by EPA at 70 FR 8516 (70 FR February 22, 2005); and the California Depar tment of Pesticide Regulation’s Fumigant Regulations, last approved by EPA at 77 FR 65294 (October 26, 2012).

Third, with respect to the “criteria” or “NAAQS” po llutants other than ozone, Ventura County is designated as “attainment” or “unclassifi able,” see 40 CFR 81.305, and background concentrations are low notwithstanding t he fact that, historically, minor agricultural sources have not been subject to NSR p ermitting or related controls. For instance, preliminary data published by CARB indica tes that the highest PM 10 concentration measured in Ventura County in 2012 an d 2013 (at the El Rio monitoring site) was less than 60 micrograms per cubic meter ( μg/m 3 ), i.e., 60% less than the applicable NAAQS for PM 10 of 150 μg/m 3 . Thus, we find that the continuation of the de facto status quo with respect to certain minor agri cultural sources being exempt from

NSR would not interfere with continued attainment o f the applicable NAAQS.

Fourth, in response to EPA’s classification of Vent ura County as “serious” nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, in June 2008, CARB submitted an attainment demonstration plan to EPA titled Final Ventura County 2007 Air Quality Management

Plan , May 13, 2008 (“2007 Ventura County Ozone Plan”), that includes a control strategy to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard b y June 2013. The control strategy in the 2007 Ventura County Ozone Plan relies primarily on mobile source controls and does not rely on NSR controls for minor agricultural sou rces. While EPA has not taken action on the 2007 Ventura County Ozone Plan, EPA has dete rmined, based on ambient ozone concentration data for 2009-2011, that Ventura Coun ty has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 77 FR 71551 (December 3, 2012). Moreover, CARB data predicts a continuing downward trend for both VOC and NO x emissions in Ventura County through 2025 under the current regulatory program for stati onary, mobile, and area sources that does not include NSR for minor agricultural sources . See CARB Almanac Emission Projection Data (published in 2013) for Ventura Cou nty for years 2012 and 2025.

Lastly, EPA has classified Ventura County as “serio us” nonattainment for the 2008 ozone

standard. See 40 CFR 81.305. Attainment demonstrati on plans for the 2008 ozone standard are not due yet, but such plan, consistent with past ozone plans for Ventura County, will need to account for the permit exempti ons in Rule 23 in developing the control strategy or take the necessary steps under state law (CH&SC 42301.16(c)) to remove the exemption if the VCAPCD decides to do so

.13

Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, EPA con cludes that the new exemption in Rule 23 for certain new or modified minor agricultu ral sources contained in section J.16 would not interfere with attainment and RFP or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and is therefore approvable under CAA Section 1 10(l).

Rule Deficiencies

No deficiencies were found that would prevent EPA f rom recommending full approval of

VCAPCD Rule 23 into the SIP.

EPA Action

EPA has reviewed the submitted rule in accordance w ith the Rule Evaluation criteria described earlier in this document. Consistent with the requi rements of 40 CFR Subpart I, all major stationary sources are required to obtain an ATC pe rmit prior to construction. For minor sources, EPA believes that the emissions from the types and sizes of equipment and operations exempted from NSR permit requirements are consistent with th e flexibility afforded to states to regulate only those sources as necessary to assure attainmen t and maintenance of the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.160(e)).

Consistent with the requirements of CAA Section 110 (l), we conclude that the new and revised exemptions would not interfere with reasonable furt her progress and attainment of any of the NAAQS in Ventura County or any other applicable req uirement of the CAA and thus is approvable under Section 110(l) of the CAA because of (1) the limited nature of the exemption, (2) the presence of other regulatory controls for e xempt agricultural sources, (3) the low background concentrations for the NAAQS pollutants in Ventura County other than ozone, and (4) the fact that the submitted ozone plan for the county does not rely on NSR controls for minor agricultural sources and that the downward trend in ozone precursor emissions in Ventura County is predicted to continue well into the futur e.

EPA recommends full approval of the following VCAPC D rule for incorporation into the California Applicable SIP, pursuant to Section 110( k)(3) of the CAA as amended in 1990:

• Rule 23 – Exemptions from Permit (amended on November 12, 2013, submitted on May 13, 2014), replacing Rule 23, Exemptions from Permit , as approved in to the SIP on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567).

EPA Recommendations The following revisions to Rule 23 are not currentl y a basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended as improvements when this rule is amend ed.

• F.10.a – The term “Clean Air Solvents” should be de fined in the SIP for VCAPCD, either in Rule 23 or in Rule 2, Definitions

.

• J.16 – A threshold for PM 2.5 should be added to the table of federal major sourc e thresholds listed in this provision.14

Attachments
1. VCAPCD Rule 23, Exemptions from Permit, as submitte d on May 13, 2014.
2. VCAPCD Staff Report (Rule 23) dated September 23, 2 013.
3. VCAPCD Staff Report (Rule 23) dated February 25, 20 11.
4. VCAPCD Staff Report (Rule 23) dated February 29, 20 08.
5. VCAPCD Staff Report (Rule 23) dated September 12, 2 006.
6. CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the Large Confined Animal Facility Definit ion, May 6, 2005. (Cover only and page 33)
7. VCAPCD Staff Report (Rule 23) dated October 12, 200 4.
8. VCAPCD Board Letter (Rule 23) dated April 13, 2004.
9. California Senate Bill 700, dated September 22, 200 3.
10. VCAPCD SIP Approved Rule 23, approved December 7, 2 000.
11. U.S. EPA, “EPA White Paper for Streamlined Developm ent of Part 70 Permit Applications” dated July 10, 1995.
12. CARB, “Select 8 Summary,” summarizes 2012 and 2013 PM 2.5 and PM 10 ambient monitoring data from Ventura County monitoring site s. 13. CARB, “Almanac Emission Projection Data, 2012 Estim ated Annual Average Emissions, Ventura County APCD.”
14. CARB, “Almanac Emission Projection Data, 2025 Forec asted Annual Average Emissions, Ventura County APCD.”