CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST 

(Electronic Format) 

*** TO BE COMPLETED BY DISTRICT AND RETURNED TO ARB *** 

All rules submitted to the EPA as State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions must be supported by certain information 

and documentation for the rule packages to be deemed complete for review by the EPA. Rules will not be evaluated for 

approvability by the EPA unless the submittal packages are complete. To assist you in determining that all necessary 

materials are included in rules packages sent to the ARB for submittal to the EPA, please fill out the following form and 

include it with the rule package you send ARB. See the ARB's Guidelines on the Implementation of the 40 CFR 51, 

Appendix V, for a more detailed explanation than is provided here. Adopted rules and rule amendments should be 

checked against U.S. EPA's Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies (Little Blue 

Book, August 21, 2001) to ensure that they contain no elements which will result in disapproval by EPA. 

District: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Rule No: 2201 and 2530

Rule Title: Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable 

Potential to Emit) 

Date Adopted or Amended: Amended December 18, 2008

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 

Note: All documents should be in electronic format. Items that have signatures, initials, or stamps may be scanned. 

 Not 

Attached Attached N/A

 COMPLETE COPY OF THE RULE: Provide an unmarked copy of the entire 

rule as adopted or amended by your District Board. 

 UNDERLINE AND STRIKEOUT COPY OF THE RULE: If an amended rule, 

provide a complete copy of the rule indicating in underline and strikeout format 

all language which has been added, deleted, or changed since the rule was 

last adopted or amended. 

 COMPLETE COPY OF THE REFERENCED RULE(S): For any rule which 

includes language specifically referencing another rule, a copy of that other 

rule must also be submitted, unless it has already been submitted to EPA as 

part of a previous SIP submittal. 

 PUBLIC NOTICE EVIDENCE: Include a copy of the local newspaper clipping 

certification(s), stating the date of publication, which must be at least 30 days 

before the hearing. As an alternative, include a copy of the actual published 

notice of the public hearing as it appeared in the local newspaper(s). In this 

case, however, enough of the newspaper page must be included to show the 

date of publication. The notice must specifically identify by title and number 

each rule adopted or amended. 

 RESOLUTION/MINUTE ORDER: Provide the Board Clerk certified resolution 

or minute order. This document must include certification that the hearing 

was held in accordance with the information in the public notice. It must also 

list the rules that were adopted or amended, the date of the public hearing, 

and a statement of compliance with California Health and Safety Code 

Sections 40725-40728 (Administrative Procedures Act). 

 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Submit copies of written public 

comments made during the notice period and at the public hearing. Also 

submit any written responses prepared by the District staff or presented to the 

District Board at the public hearing. A summary of the public comments and 

responses is adequate. If there were no comments made during the notice 

period or at the hearing, please indicate N/A to the left. 
 

5/1/2002 

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST 

(Electronic Format)

TECHNICAL MATERIALS 

Note: All documents and forms should be in electronic format. 

 Not 

Attached Attached N/A

 RULE EVALUATION FORM: See instructions for completing the Rule 

Evaluation Form and the accompanying sample form. 

 NON-EPA TEST METHODS: Attach all test methods that are referenced in 

your rule that do not appear in 40 CFR 51, 60, 61, 63, or have not been 

previously submitted to EPA. EPA methods used in other media such as 

SW846 for solid waste are not automatically approved for air pollution 

applications. Submittal of test methods that are not EPA-approved should 

include the information and follow the procedure described in Region 9’s “Test 

Method Review & Evaluation Process.” 

 MODELING SUPPORT: Provide if appropriate. In general, modeling support is 

not required for VOC and NOx rules to determine their impacts on ozone 

levels. Modeling is required where a rule is a relaxation that affects large 

sources (> 100 TPY) in an attainment area for SO2, directly emitted PM10, 

CO, or NOx (for NO2 purposes). In cases where EPA is concerned with the 

impact on air quality of rule revisions which relax limits or cause a shift in 

emission patterns in a nonattainment area, a reference back to the approved 

SIP will be sufficient provided the approved SIP accounts for the relaxation 

and provided the approved SIP used the current EPA modeling guidelines. If 

current EPA modeling guidelines were not used, then new modeling may be 

required. 

 ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIATIONS FROM 

EPA POLICIES: The District staff report or other information included with the 

submittal should discuss all potential relaxations or deviations from RACT, 

RACM, BACT, BACM, enforceability, attainment, RFP, or other relevant EPA 

requirements. This includes, for example, demonstrating that exemptions or 

emission limits less stringent than the presumptive RACT (e.g., a CTG) meet 

EPA’s 5 percent policy, and demonstrating that all source categories 

exempted from a RACM/BACM rule are de minimus according to EPA’s 

RACM/BACM policy. 

 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS: Provide District staff reports and any other 

supporting information concerning development of the rule or rule changes. 

This information should explain the basis for all limits and thresholds 

contained in the rule. 
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM – Page 1 

(Electronic Format) 

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: SJVUAPCD

Rule No(s): Rule 2201 and Rule 2530 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: Amended December 18, 2008

Rule Title(s): Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule)

 Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

Date Submitted to ARB: February 4, 2009

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): Rule 2201 Last Amended September 21, 2006. Rule 2530 Last 

amended April 25, 2002.

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No (If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Carlos Garcia Phone Number: 559 230-5893 E-mail Address: carlos.garcia@valleyair.org

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule 

The amendments to Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable 

Potential to Emit), which will become effective upon EPA approval, incorporate required changes resulting from the 

reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley's federal eight-hour ozone attainment status to extreme nonattainment. The 

changes affect the definitions of “major source” and “federal major modification” by lowering their respective applicability 

thresholds, and increase the amount of mitigation required by major projects.. 

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2 

 (CO) PM TAC (name): 

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

defunct 

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach reference(s) for emission 

factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined. 

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A 

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: N/A

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: N/A Area Affected: N/A

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible): 

N/A
 

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 2 

(Electronic Format) 

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): N/A

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): N/A

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and 

planning. 

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split 

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: N/A

Percent in Nonattainment Area: N/A% 

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: N/A Percent in Nonattainment Area: N/A% 

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as 

necessary): N/A

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No 

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) N/A of the Rule. 

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are: N/A

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains: 

Emission Limits in Section(s): N/A Work Practice Standards in Section(s): N/A

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): Reporting Requirements in Section(s): 5.8, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4
 

5/1/2002 

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 3 

(Electronic Format) 

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

 No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment 

Discussion: The amendments implement requirements of the federal Clean Air Act for non-attainment areas. No 

emission reductions are expected from the additional administrative requirements.
28 

SJVUAPCD 

990 E. Gettysburg Ave. 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW 

RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

IN THE MATTER OF: PROPOSED ) RESOLUTION NO. 08-12-16 

AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND 1 

MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW j RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY 

ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

1 

1 

WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) is a 

duly constituted unified air pollution control district, as provided in California Health 

and Safety Code Sections 41 050 to 401 61 ; and 

WHEREAS, said district is authorized by California Health and Safety Code Section 

40702 to make and enforce all necessary and proper orders, rules, and regulations to 

accomplish the purpose of Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code; and 

WHEREAS, the California Clean Air Act as codified in Section 40920(b) of the 

California Health and Safety Code requires the District's attainment plans to provide for 

a stationary source control program designed to achieve no net increase in emissions 

of nonattainment pollutants or their precursors from all new or modified stationary 

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

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 107 of the federal Clean Air Act and pursuant to 

Section 39608 of the California Health and Safety Code, the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin has been classified as a nonattainment area for the national and state healthbased ozone air quality standards; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 107 of the federal Clean Air Act, the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin has been classified as a serious nonattainment area for the national 

eight-hour health-based ozone air quality standards; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 181 (b)(3) of the federal Clean Air Act, the District 

requested the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reclassify the 

-1- Resolution For Amendments to Rules 

2201 and 2530 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

'26 

27 

28 

SJVUAPCD 

990 E. Gettysburg Ave. 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 

SJVUA PCD Governing Board 

ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW 

RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin as an extreme nonattainment area for the national eighthour health-based ozone air quality standards; and 

WHEREAS, the NSR requirements of the national one-hour ozone air quality 

standard (0.12 ppb) had been revoked by EPA and replaced by those of the more 

health-protective national eight-hour standard; and 

WHEREAS, the Washington DC Circuit Court ruled that the one-hour ozone 

standard's NSR requirements are still applicable under the federal Clean Air Act; and 

WHEREAS, the federal Clean Air Act, section 182(d) requires extreme ozone areas 

to meet the serious and severe area requirements and additional extreme area 

requirements including, but not limited to, a reduction to 10 tons per year for the VOC 

and NOx major source threshold and an increase to 1.5:l of the New Source Review 

emissions offset ratio for major sources; and 

WHEREAS, changes to Rules 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review) 

Rule and 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) are necessary to incorporate 

the additional extreme area requirements of the federal Clean Air Act section 182(d); 

and 

WHEREAS, said amendments to Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) are not made less 

stringent than the rule version that existed on December 30, 2002 pursuant to 

California Health and Safety Code 42500 through 42507; and 

WHEREAS, a public hearing for the adoption of proposed amendments to Rule 2201 

(New And Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential To Emit) was duly noticed for December 18, 2008, in 

accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 40725. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The Governing Board hereby amends Rule 2201 (New And Modified Stationary 

Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential To Emit), as set 

forth in the attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Amendments 

-2- Resolution For Amendmenfs to Rules 

2201 and 2530 
28 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave. 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 

SJVUA PCD Governing Board 

ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIHED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW 

RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

to Rule 2201 and Rule 2530 shall become effective on the date that the EPA 

promulgates final approval in the Federal Register. 

2. The Governing Board hereby finds, based on the evidence and information 

presented at the hearing upon which its decision is based, all notices required to be 

given by law have been duly given in accordance with Health and Safety Code 

Section 40725, and the Board has allowed public testimony in accordance with Health 

and Safety Code Section 40726. 

3. In connection with said rulemaking, the Board makes the following findings as 

required by California Health and Safety Code Section 40727: 

a. NECESSITY. The Governing Board finds based on the staff report, on 

public and industry testimony, and on the record for this rulemaking proceeding that a 

need exists for amendments of said rules consistent with the provisions of the federal 

Clean Air Act. Although EPA revoked the one-hour standard effective June 15, 2005, 

amendments to said rules are necessary to implement NSR anti-backsliding 

requirements. Amendments to said rules are necessary to implement federal Clean 

Air Act requirements pertaining to the District's request to be classified as a federal 

eight-hour extreme ozone nonattainment area. 

b. AUTHORITY. The Governing Board finds that it has the legal authority 

for said rulemaking under the California Health & Safety Code Sections 40000 and 

4000 1. 

c. CLARITY. The Governing Board finds that said rule is written or 

displayed so that the meaning can be easily understood by those persons or 

industries directly affected by the said rule. 

d. CONSISTENCY. The Governing Board finds that said rule is in 

harmony with, and not in conflict with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court 

decisions, or state or federal regulations. The amendments to said rule are intended 

to maintain California's technology-based program, prevent any weakening of the 

District's current NSR programs as a result of the federal amendments, and ensure 

-3- Resolution For Amendments to Rules 

2201 and 2530 
28 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPTAMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW 

RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 78, 2008 

progress towards attainment and maintenance of both state and national ambient air 

quality standards along with economic growth. 

e. NONDUPLICATION. The Governing Board finds that said rule does not 

impose the same requirements as any existing state or federal regulation. 

f. REFERENCE. The Governing Board finds that said rulemaking 

implements Section 182(d) of the federal Clean Air Act, and Section 40920(b) of the 

California Health and Safety Code. 

4. The Governing Board finds that, because said rulemaking will have no possible 

significant adverse effect on the environment, the proposed actions are exempt from 

the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) under the 

provisions of Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 

5. The Executive DirectorIAir Pollution Control Officer is directed to file a Notice of 

Exemption with the County Clerks of each of the counties in the District. 

6. The Executive DirectorIAir Pollution Control Officer is directed to file with all 

appropriate agencies certified copies of this resolution and the rule adopted herein 

and is directed to maintain a record of this rulemaking proceeding in accordance with 

California Health and Safety Code Section 40728. 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

Ill 

111 

Ill 

-4- Resolution For Amendments to Rule: 

2201 and 253( 
28 

SJVUAPCD 

990 E. Gettysburg Ave. 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW 

RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

THE FOREGOING was passed and adopted by the following vote of the 

Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District this 

18th day of December 2008, to wit: 

AYES: Watson, Telles, Case, Nelson, 

Dominici, Barba, O'Brien, Worthley, 

Vierra, Ornellas 

NOES: 

ABSENT: Forman, Perea 

SAWYOAQUINNLEY UNIFIED 

ATTEST: 

Clerk to the Governing Board 

Resolution For Amendments to Rules 

2201 and 2530 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 1 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

RULE 2530 FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT (Adopted June 15, 1995; 

Amended April 25, 2002; Amended (date of adoption), but not in effect until (date 

of EPA final approval)) 

1.0 Purpose 

 The purpose of this rule is to restrict the potential to emit of a stationary source so that the 

source may be exempt from the requirements of Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating 

Permits). 

2.0 Applicability 

 This rule shall apply to any stationary source which is a major source of regulated air 

pollutants or of hazardous air pollutants. 

3.0 Definitions 

 All terms shall retain the definitions provided under Rule 2520 unless otherwise defined in 

this section. 

 3.1 12-month period: a period of twelve consecutive months determined on a rolling 

basis with a new 12-month period beginning on the first day of each calendar 

month. 

 3.2 Actual Emissions: the emissions of a regulated air pollutant from a stationary 

source for every 12-month period. Valid continuous emission monitoring data or 

source test data shall be preferentially used to determine actual emissions. In the 

absence of valid continuous emissions monitoring or source test data, the basis for 

determining actual emissions shall be: throughput of process materials; throughput 

of materials stored; usage of materials; data provided in manufacturer's product 

specifications; material volatile organic compound content reports or laboratory 

analyses; other information required by this rule and applicable District, state, and 

federal regulations; or information requested in writing by the District. All 

calculations of actual emissions shall use EPA, CARB, or District approved 

methods, including emission factors and assumptions. 

 3.3 HAP: a hazardous air pollutant listed in section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act. 

 3.4 Major Source of Hazardous Air Pollutants: a stationary source with potential to 

emit (including fugitive emissions) 10 tons per year or more of a single HAP, or 25 

tons per year or more (including fugitive emissions) of a combination of HAPs. 

Emissions from any oil or gas production well (with its associated equipment) and 

emissions from any pipeline compressor station shall not be aggregated with 

emissions from other similar units to determine whether such units or stations are 

major sources of HAPs. 

Deleted: ¶

Deleted: n
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 2 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

 3.5 Process Statement: an annual report on permitted emission units from an owner or 

operator of a stationary source certifying under penalty of perjury the following: 

throughput of process materials; throughput of materials stored; usage of materials; 

fuel usage; any available continuous emissions monitoring data; hours of operation; 

and any other information required by this rule or requested in writing by the 

District. 

4.0 General Provisions 

 4.1 Any stationary source that is in compliance with the applicable requirements of this 

rule shall not be considered a major source for the purpose of compliance with 

District Rule 2520. 

 4.2 Provision for Air Pollution Control Equipment: The owner or operator of a 

stationary source may take into account the operation of air pollution control 

equipment on the capacity of the source to emit an air contaminant if the equipment 

is required by Federal, State, or District rules and regulations or permit terms and 

conditions. The owner or operator of the stationary source shall maintain and 

operate such air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. This provision shall not apply 

after January 1, 1999 unless such operational limitation is federally enforceable or 

unless the District Board specifically extends this provision and it is submitted to the 

EPA. Such extension shall be valid unless, and until, the EPA disapproves the 

extension of this provision. 

 4.3 Within three years of the effective date of District Rule 2520, the District shall 

maintain and make available to the public upon request, for each stationary source 

subject to this rule, information identifying the provisions of this rule applicable to 

the source. 

 4.4 This rule shall not relieve any stationary source from complying with requirements 

pertaining to any otherwise applicable preconstruction permit, or to replace a 

condition or term of any preconstruction permit, or any provision of a 

preconstruction permitting program. This does not preclude issuance of any 

preconstruction permit with conditions or terms necessary to ensure compliance 

with this rule. 

 4.5 Unless the owner or operator has chosen to operate the stationary source under an 

alternative operational limit specified in section 6.2, the owner or operator of a 

stationary source subject to this rule shall obtain any necessary permits prior to 

commencing any physical or operational change or activity which will result in 

actual emissions that exceed the limits specified in section 6.1. 

 4.6 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall obtain any 

necessary permits prior to commencing any physical or operational change or 

Deleted: ,

Deleted: U.S. 

Deleted: U.S. 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 3 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

activity which will result in an exceedance of an applicable operational limit 

specified in section 6.2. 

5.0 Exemptions 

 5.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to a stationary source with valid Part 70 

permits, or a stationary source that has applied for Part 70 permit in accordance with 

timelines required in District Rule 2520. Nothing in this rule shall prevent any 

stationary source which has had a Part 70 permit from qualifying to comply with 

this rule in the future in lieu of maintaining an application for a Part 70 permit or 

upon rescission of a Part 70 permit if the owner or operator demonstrates that the 

stationary source is in compliance with the applicable requirements of this rule. 

 5.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to stationary source whose actual 

emissions, throughput, or operation, at any time after the effective date of this rule, 

exceed the limits specified in this rule, provided that the following conditions are 

met: 

 5.2.1 The owner or operator has notified the District at least 30 days prior to any 

exceedance, and will submit an application for a Part 70 permit, or otherwise 

obtain federally-enforceable permit limits, and 

 5.2.2 A complete Part 70 permit application is received by the District, or the 

permit action to otherwise obtain federally-enforceable limits is completed, 

within 12 months of the date of notification. 

 5.3 This rule shall not apply to any stationary source which has a valid operating permit 

with federally enforceable conditions or other federally enforceable limits limiting 

its potential to emit to below the applicable threshold(s) for a major source. 

 5.4 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule shall not apply to the 

following: 

 5.4.1 Any stationary source that emits no more than the following quantity of 

emissions in any 12-month period: 

 5.4.1.1 5 tons per year of a regulated air pollutant (excluding HAPs), 

 5.4.1.2 2 tons per year of NOx or VOC, or of a single HAP, 

 5.4.1.3 5 tons per year of any combination of HAPs, and 

 5.4.1.4 20 percent of any lesser threshold for a single HAP that the 

EPA may establish by rule. 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 4 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

 5.4.2 Any stationary sources for which 90 percent of the stationary sources 

emissions from the permitted emissions units in every 12-month period are 

associated with an operation for which the throughput is less than or equal to 

one of the following quantities: 

 5.4.2.1 560 gallons of any combination of solvent containing 

material but no more than 220 gallons of any one solventcontaining material, provided that the materials do not 

contain methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), methylene 

chloride (dichloromethane), tetrachloroethylene 

(perchloroethylene), or trichloroethylene; 

 5.4.2.2 300 gallon of any combination of solvent containing 

materials where the material contain methyl chloroform 

(1,1,1-trichloroethane), methylene chloride 

(dichloromethane), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), 

or trichloroethylene, but no more than 120 gallons of any one 

solvent-containing material; 

 5.4.2.3 500 gallons of solvent-containing (or volatile organic 

compound containing) material used at a paint spray unit(s); 

 5.4.2.4 2,862,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed from equipment 

with Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems as 

defined in Rule 4621; 

 5.4.2.5 188,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed from equipment 

without Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems as 

defined in Rule 4621; 

 5.4.2.6 560 gallons of gasoline combusted; 

 5.4.2.7 6,640 gallons of diesel fuel combusted; or

 

 5.4.2.8 28,560,000 cubic feet of natural gas combusted. 

Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"

Deleted: 1,400

Deleted: 550 

Deleted: 750

Deleted: 300 

Deleted: 4,400,000

Deleted: 470,000

Deleted: 1,400

Deleted: 16,600

Deleted: 5.4.2.8 500,000 gallons of 

distillate oil combusted; or

Deleted: 9

Deleted: 71,400,000
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 5 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

5.5 The reporting requirements of this rule shall not apply to stationary sources which 

emit in every 12-month period less than or equal to the following quantities: 

 5.5.1 25 tons per year of sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide; 

5.5.2 2.5 tons per year for oxides of nitrogen, or volatile organic compounds; 

5.5.3 15 tons per year for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 

than or equal to 10 microns (PM10); 

 5.5.4 2.5 tons per year of a single HAP; 

 5.5.5 6.25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs; and 

 

 5.5.6 25 percent of any lesser threshold for a single HAP as the EPA may 

establish by rule. 

 5.6 Within 30 days of written request by the District or the EPA, the owner or operator 

of stationary source claiming exemption from the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of this rule shall demonstrate the stationary source's emissions or 

throughput are not in excess of the applicable quantities set forth in section 5.4.1, 

5.4.2, or 5.5 of this rule. 

6.0 General Requirements 

 Each stationary source shall meet either the emission limits prescribed in section 6.1 or the 

alternative operational limits in section 6.2 of this rule. 

 6.1 Emission Limits: 

 In every 12-month period, the stationary source shall not emit more than the 

following quantity of emissions: 

 6.1.1 5 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds; 

 6.1.2 35 tons per year of sulfur dioxide or particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10); 

 6.1.3 50 tons per year of carbon monoxide; 

 6.1.4 5 tons per year of a single HAP, 

 6.1.5 12.5 tons per year of any combination of HAPs, 

Deleted: 6.25 

Deleted: U.S. 

Deleted: form 

Deleted: 12.5 

Deleted: or sulfur dioxide
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 6 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

 6.1.6 50 percent of any lesser threshold for a single HAP as the EPA may 

establish by rule, and 

 6.1.7 50 percent of the major source threshold for any other regulated air pollutant 

not listed in 6.1.1 through 6.1.6. 

 6.2 Alternative Operational Limits: 

 Stationary sources for which 90 percent of the stationary sources emissions from the 

permitted emissions units in every 12-month period are associated with one of the 

following operations, shall comply with the following operational limits for that 

operation: 

 6.2.1 Gasoline Dispensing Facility with Phase I and II Vapor Recovery Systems 

 No more than 7,000,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed in any 12-month 

period. 

 6.2.2 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Units 

 6.2.2.1 If the solvents do not include methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichloroethylene, 

no more than 2,700 gallons of any combination of solventcontaining materials and 2,200 gallons of any one solventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period; or 

 6.2.2.2 If the solvents include methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichloroethylene, 

no more than 2,900 gallons of any combination of solventcontaining materials and 1,200 gallons of any one solventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period.

 6.2.3 Paint Spraying Units 

 The total usage rate of all VOC-containing materials, including but not 

limited to coatings, thinners, reducers, and clean-up solution is no more than 

2,100 gallons in any 12-month period. 

 6.2.4 Diesel-Fueled Emergency Stand-by Engine(s) of less than 1,000 Brake 

Horsepower 

 Fuel usage is no more than 26,400 gallons in any 12-month period. 

Deleted: 5,400

Deleted: 66,000
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 7 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

7.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

 7.1 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule shall not replace any 

recordkeeping or reporting requirement contained in an operating permit or in a 

District, State, or Federal rule or regulation. 

 7.2 Any stationary source previously exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of this rule in accordance with section 5.4 of this rule, shall comply 

with applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule if the 

stationary source exceeds the quantities specified in sections 5.4.1, or 5.4.2 of this 

rule. 

 7.3 Immediately after the effective date of this rule, the owner or operator of a stationary 

source subject to this rule shall comply with any applicable recordkeeping 

requirements in this section. 

 7.4 Any additional information requested by the APCO shall be submitted to the APCO 

within 30 days of the date of request. 

 

 7.5 Except for stationary sources operating under the alternative operational limits of 

this rule, the owner or operator shall comply with the following recordkeeping 

requirements: 

 7.5.1 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall keep 

and maintain records for each permitted emission unit or groups of permitted 

emission units sufficient to determine actual emissions. Such information 

shall be summarized in a monthly log, maintained on site by the owner or 

operator for five years, and be made available to District, CARB, or EPA 

staff upon request. (In some cases it may be appropriate to keep records on 

groups of emissions units which are connected in series. Examples are 

internal combination engines in the oil fields with a common fuel line, or a 

series of paint spray booths with a common feed.) 

 7.5.2 Coating/Solvent Emission Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contain 

a coating/solvent emission unit or uses a coating, solvent, ink or adhesive 

shall keep and maintain the following records: 

 7.5.2.1 A current list of all coatings, solvents, inks and adhesives in 

use. This list shall include: information on the 

manufacturer, brand, product name or code, VOC content in 

grams per liter or pounds per gallon, HAPs content in grams 

per liter or pounds per gallon, or manufacturer's product 

Deleted: U.S. 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 8 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

specifications, material VOC content reports or laboratory 

analyses providing this information; 

 7.5.2.2 A description of any equipment used during and after 

coating/solvent application, including type, make and model; 

maximum design process rate or throughput; control 

device(s) type and description (if any); and a description of 

the coating/solvent application/drying method(s) employed; 

 7.5.2.3 A monthly log of the consumption of each solvent (including 

solvents used in clean-up and surface preparation), coating, 

ink and adhesive used; and 

 7.5.2.4 All purchase orders, invoices, and other documents to 

support information in the monthly log. 

 7.5.3 Organic Liquid Storage Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

a permitted organic liquid storage unit shall keep and maintain the following 

records: 

 7.5.3.1 A monthly log identifying the liquid stored and monthly 

throughput; and 

 7.5.3.2 Information on the tank design and specifications including 

control equipment. 

 7.5.4 Combustion Emission Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

a combustion emission unit shall keep and maintain the following records: 

 7.5.4.1 Information on equipment type, make and model, maximum 

design process rate or maximum power input/output, 

minimum operating temperature (for thermal oxidizers) and 

capacity, control device(s) type and description (if any) and 

all source test information; and 

 7.5.4.2 A monthly log of hours of operation, fuel type, fuel usage, 

fuel heating value (for non-fossil fuels; in terms of BTU/lb or 

BTU/gal), percent sulfur for fuel oil and coal, and percent 

nitrogen for coal. 

 

Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.5"
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 9 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

7.5.5 Emission Control Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

an emission control unit shall keep and maintain the following records: 

 7.5.5.1 Information on equipment type and description, make and 

model, and emission units served by the control unit; 

 7.5.5.2 Information on equipment design including where 

applicable: pollutant(s) controlled; control effectiveness; 

maximum design or rated capacity; inlet and outlet 

temperatures, and concentrations for each pollutant

controlled; catalyst data (type, material, life, volume, space 

velocity, ammonia injection rate and temperature); baghouse 

data (design, cleaning method, fabric material, flow rate, 

air/cloth ratio); electrostatic precipitator data (number of 

fields, cleaning method, and power input); scrubber data 

(type, design, sorbent type, pressure drop); other design data 

as appropriate; all source test information; and 

 7.5.5.3 A monthly log of hours of operation including notation of 

any control equipment breakdowns, upsets, repairs, 

maintenance and any other deviations from design 

parameters. 

 7.5.6 General Emission Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

an emission unit not included in section 7.5.2 through 7.5.4 above shall keep 

and maintain the following records: 

 

 7.5.6.1 Information on the process and equipment including the 

following: equipment type, description, make and model; 

maximum design process rate or throughput; control 

device(s) type and description (if any); 

 7.5.6.2 Any additional information requested in writing by the 

APCO; 

 7.5.6.3 A monthly log of operating hours, each raw material used 

and its amount, each product produced and its production 

rate; and 

 7.5.6.4 Purchase orders, invoices, and other documents to support 

information in the monthly log. 

Deleted: 

Deleted: 5

Deleted: subsections A, B or C 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 10 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

 7.5.7 At the time of annual District review of a permit to operate under Rule 2520, 

each owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall submit 

to the District a process statement. The statement shall be signed by the 

owner or operator and certify that the information provided is accurate and 

true. 

 

 7.6 Upon choosing to operate a stationary source subject to this rule under any one 

alternative operational limit, the owner or operator shall operate the stationary 

source in compliance with the alternative operational limit as prescribed in section 

6.2 and shall comply with the following recordkeeping and reporting requirements: 

 

 7.6.1 The owner or operator shall report within 24 hours to the APCO any 

exceedance of the alternative operational limit. 

 7.6.2 The owner or operator shall maintain all purchase orders, invoices, and other 

documents to support information required to be maintained in a monthly 

log. Records required under this section shall be maintained on site for five 

years and be made available to District or EPA staff upon request. 

 7.6.3 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Equipment with Phase I and II Vapor Recovery 

Systems 

 The owner or operator shall operate the gasoline dispensing equipment in 

compliance with the following requirements: 

 7.6.3.1 A monthly log of gallons of gasoline dispensed in the 

preceding month with a monthly calculation of the total 

gallons dispensed in the previous 12 months shall be kept on 

site. 

 7.6.3.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

 7.6.4 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Unit 

 The owner or operator shall operate the degreasing or solvent-using unit(s) 

in compliance with the following requirements: 

 7.6.4.1 A monthly log of amount and type of solvent used in the 

preceding month with a monthly calculation of the total 

gallons used in the previous 12 months shall be kept on site. 

Deleted: U.S. 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 11 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

 7.6.4.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

 7.6.5 Paint Spraying Unit 

 The owner or operator shall operate the paint spraying unit(s) in compliance 

with the following requirements: 

 7.6.5.1 A monthly log of the gallons of VOC-containing materials 

used in the preceding month with a monthly calculation of 

the total gallons used in the previous 12 months shall be kept 

on site. 

 7.6.5.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

 7.6.6 Diesel-Fueled Emergency Standby Engine(s) with Output Less Than 1,000 

Brake Horsepower 

 The owner or operator shall operate the emergency standby engine(s) in 

compliance with the following requirements: 

 7.6.6.1 A monthly log of hours of operation, gallons of fuel used, 

and a monthly calculation of the total hours operated and 

gallons of fuel used in the previous 12 months shall be kept 

on site. 

 7.6.6.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

8.0 Violations 

 8.1 Failure to comply with any of the applicable provisions of this rule shall constitute a 

violation of this rule. Each day during which a violation of this rule occurs is a 

separate offense. 

 8.2 A stationary source subject to this rule shall be subject to applicable federal 

requirements for a major source, including Rule 2520 when the conditions specified 

in either subsections 8.2.1 or 8.2.2 below, occur: 

Deleted: 

Deleted: OR 
 PROPOSED December 18, 2008

2530 - 12 Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530

 8.2.1 Commencing on the first day following every 12-month period in which the 

stationary source exceeds a limit specified in section 6.1 above and any 

applicable alternative operational limit specified in section 6.2, above, or 

 8.2.2 Commencing on the first day following every 12-month period in which the 

owner or operator can not demonstrate that the stationary source is in 

compliance with the limits in section 6.1 above or any applicable alternative 

operational limit specified in section 6.2 above. 

 8.3 The APCO shall evaluate a stationary source's compliance with the emission 

limitations in section 6.1 above as part of the District's annual permit review process 

required by Health & Safety Code section 42301(e). In performing the evaluation, 

the APCO shall consider any annual process statement submitted pursuant to section 

7.0 reporting requirements. In the absence of valid continuous emission monitoring 

data or source test data, actual emissions shall be calculated using emissions factors 

approved by the EPA, CARB, or the APCO. Deleted: U.S. 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 1 12/18/08 

RULE 2530 FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT (Adopted June 15, 1995; 

Amended April 25, 2002; Amended (December 18, 2008), but not in effect until 

(date of EPA final approval)) 

1.0 Purpose 

 The purpose of this rule is to restrict the potential to emit of a stationary source so that the 

source may be exempt from the requirements of Rule 2520 (Federally Mandated Operating 

Permits). 

2.0 Applicability 

 This rule shall apply to any stationary source which is a major source of regulated air 

pollutants or of hazardous air pollutants. 

3.0 Definitions 

 All terms shall retain the definitions provided under Rule 2520 unless otherwise defined in 

this section. 

 3.1 12-month period: a period of twelve consecutive months determined on a rolling 

basis with a new 12-month period beginning on the first day of each calendar 

month. 

 3.2 Actual Emissions: the emissions of a regulated air pollutant from a stationary 

source for every 12-month period. Valid continuous emission monitoring data or 

source test data shall be preferentially used to determine actual emissions. In the 

absence of valid continuous emissions monitoring or source test data, the basis for 

determining actual emissions shall be: throughput of process materials; throughput 

of materials stored; usage of materials; data provided in manufacturer's product 

specifications; material volatile organic compound content reports or laboratory 

analyses; other information required by this rule and applicable District, state, and 

federal regulations; or information requested in writing by the District. All 

calculations of actual emissions shall use EPA, CARB, or District approved 

methods, including emission factors and assumptions. 

 3.3 HAP: a hazardous air pollutant listed in section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act. 

 3.4 Major Source of Hazardous Air Pollutants: a stationary source with potential to 

emit (including fugitive emissions) 10 tons per year or more of a single HAP, or 25 

tons per year or more (including fugitive emissions) of a combination of HAPs. 

Emissions from any oil or gas production well (with its associated equipment) and 

emissions from any pipeline compressor station shall not be aggregated with 

emissions from other similar units to determine whether such units or stations are 

major sources of HAPs. 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 2 12/18/08 

 3.5 Process Statement: an annual report on permitted emission units from an owner or 

operator of a stationary source certifying under penalty of perjury the following: 

throughput of process materials; throughput of materials stored; usage of materials; 

fuel usage; any available continuous emissions monitoring data; hours of operation; 

and any other information required by this rule or requested in writing by the 

District. 

4.0 General Provisions 

 4.1 Any stationary source that is in compliance with the applicable requirements of this 

rule shall not be considered a major source for the purpose of compliance with 

District Rule 2520. 

 4.2 Provision for Air Pollution Control Equipment: The owner or operator of a 

stationary source may take into account the operation of air pollution control 

equipment on the capacity of the source to emit an air contaminant if the equipment 

is required by Federal, State, or District rules and regulations or permit terms and 

conditions. The owner or operator of the stationary source shall maintain and 

operate such air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air 

pollution control practice for minimizing emissions. This provision shall not apply 

after January 1, 1999 unless such operational limitation is federally enforceable or 

unless the District Board specifically extends this provision and it is submitted to the 

EPA. Such extension shall be valid unless, and until, the EPA disapproves the 

extension of this provision. 

 4.3 Within three years of the effective date of District Rule 2520, the District shall 

maintain and make available to the public upon request, for each stationary source 

subject to this rule, information identifying the provisions of this rule applicable to 

the source. 

 4.4 This rule shall not relieve any stationary source from complying with requirements 

pertaining to any otherwise applicable preconstruction permit, or to replace a 

condition or term of any preconstruction permit, or any provision of a 

preconstruction permitting program. This does not preclude issuance of any 

preconstruction permit with conditions or terms necessary to ensure compliance 

with this rule. 

 4.5 Unless the owner or operator has chosen to operate the stationary source under an 

alternative operational limit specified in section 6.2, the owner or operator of a 

stationary source subject to this rule shall obtain any necessary permits prior to 

commencing any physical or operational change or activity which will result in 

actual emissions that exceed the limits specified in section 6.1. 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 3 12/18/08 

 4.6 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall obtain any 

necessary permits prior to commencing any physical or operational change or 

activity which will result in an exceedance of an applicable operational limit 

specified in section 6.2. 

5.0 Exemptions 

 5.1 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to a stationary source with valid Part 70 

permits, or a stationary source that has applied for Part 70 permit in accordance with 

timelines required in District Rule 2520. Nothing in this rule shall prevent any 

stationary source which has had a Part 70 permit from qualifying to comply with 

this rule in the future in lieu of maintaining an application for a Part 70 permit or 

upon rescission of a Part 70 permit if the owner or operator demonstrates that the 

stationary source is in compliance with the applicable requirements of this rule. 

 5.2 The provisions of this rule shall not apply to stationary source whose actual 

emissions, throughput, or operation, at any time after the effective date of this rule, 

exceed the limits specified in this rule, provided that the following conditions are 

met: 

 5.2.1 The owner or operator has notified the District at least 30 days prior to any 

exceedance, and will submit an application for a Part 70 permit, or otherwise 

obtain federally-enforceable permit limits, and 

 5.2.2 A complete Part 70 permit application is received by the District, or the 

permit action to otherwise obtain federally-enforceable limits is completed, 

within 12 months of the date of notification. 

 5.3 This rule shall not apply to any stationary source which has a valid operating permit 

with federally enforceable conditions or other federally enforceable limits limiting 

its potential to emit to below the applicable threshold(s) for a major source. 

 5.4 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule shall not apply to the 

following: 

 5.4.1 Any stationary source that emits no more than the following quantity of 

emissions in any 12-month period: 

 5.4.1.1 5 tons per year of a regulated air pollutant (excluding HAPs), 

 5.4.1.2 2 tons per year of NOx or VOC, or of a single HAP, 

 5.4.1.3 5 tons per year of any combination of HAPs, and 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 4 12/18/08 

 5.4.1.4 20 percent of any lesser threshold for a single HAP that the 

EPA may establish by rule. 

 5.4.2 Any stationary sources for which 90 percent of the stationary sources 

emissions from the permitted emissions units in every 12-month period are 

associated with an operation for which the throughput is less than or equal to 

one of the following quantities: 

 5.4.2.1 560 gallons of any combination of solvent containing 

material but no more than 220 gallons of any one solventcontaining material, provided that the materials do not 

contain methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), methylene 

chloride (dichloromethane), tetrachloroethylene 

(perchloroethylene), or trichloroethylene; 

 5.4.2.2 300 gallon of any combination of solvent containing 

materials where the material contain methyl chloroform 

(1,1,1-trichloroethane), methylene chloride 

(dichloromethane), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), 

or trichloroethylene, but no more than 120 gallons of any one 

solvent-containing material; 

 5.4.2.3 500 gallons of solvent-containing (or volatile organic 

compound containing) material used at a paint spray unit(s); 

 5.4.2.4 2,862,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed from equipment 

with Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems as

defined in Rule 4621; 

 5.4.2.5 188,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed from equipment 

without Phase I and Phase II Vapor Recovery Systems as 

defined in Rule 4621; 

 5.4.2.6 560 gallons of gasoline combusted; 

 5.4.2.7 6,640 gallons of diesel fuel combusted; or 

 

 5.4.2.8 28,560,000 cubic feet of natural gas combusted. 

 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 5 12/18/08 

5.5 The reporting requirements of this rule shall not apply to stationary sources which 

emit in every 12-month period less than or equal to the following quantities: 

 5.5.1 25 tons per year of sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide; 

5.5.2 2.5 tons per year for oxides of nitrogen, or volatile organic compounds; 

5.5.3 15 tons per year for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 

than or equal to 10 microns (PM10); 

 5.5.4 2.5 tons per year of a single HAP; 

 5.5.5 6.25 tons per year of any combination of HAPs; and 

 

 5.5.6 25 percent of any lesser threshold for a single HAP as the EPA may 

establish by rule. 

 5.6 Within 30 days of written request by the District or the EPA, the owner or operator 

of stationary source claiming exemption from the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of this rule shall demonstrate the stationary source's emissions or 

throughput are not in excess of the applicable quantities set forth in section 5.4.1, 

5.4.2, or 5.5 of this rule. 

6.0 General Requirements 

 Each stationary source shall meet either the emission limits prescribed in section 6.1 or the 

alternative operational limits in section 6.2 of this rule. 

 6.1 Emission Limits: 

 In every 12-month period, the stationary source shall not emit more than the 

following quantity of emissions: 

 6.1.1 5 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds; 

 6.1.2 35 tons per year of sulfur dioxide or particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10); 

 6.1.3 50 tons per year of carbon monoxide; 

 6.1.4 5 tons per year of a single HAP, 

 6.1.5 12.5 tons per year of any combination of HAPs, 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 6 12/18/08 

 6.1.6 50 percent of any lesser threshold for a single HAP as the EPA may 

establish by rule, and 

 6.1.7 50 percent of the major source threshold for any other regulated air pollutant 

not listed in 6.1.1 through 6.1.6. 

 6.2 Alternative Operational Limits: 

 Stationary sources for which 90 percent of the stationary sources emissions from the 

permitted emissions units in every 12-month period are associated with one of the 

following operations, shall comply with the following operational limits for that 

operation: 

 6.2.1 Gasoline Dispensing Facility with Phase I and II Vapor Recovery Systems 

 No more than 7,000,000 gallons of gasoline dispensed in any 12-month 

period. 

 6.2.2 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Units 

 6.2.2.1 If the solvents do not include methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichloroethylene, 

no more than 2,700 gallons of any combination of solventcontaining materials and 2,200 gallons of any one solventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period; or 

 6.2.2.2 If the solvents include methyl chloroform (1,1,1-

trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 

tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichloroethylene, 

no more than 2,900 gallons of any combination of solventcontaining materials and 1,200 gallons of any one solventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period.

 6.2.3 Paint Spraying Units 

 The total usage rate of all VOC-containing materials, including but not 

limited to coatings, thinners, reducers, and clean-up solution is no more than 

2,100 gallons in any 12-month period. 

 6.2.4 Diesel-Fueled Emergency Stand-by Engine(s) of less than 1,000 Brake 

Horsepower 

 Fuel usage is no more than 26,400 gallons in any 12-month period. 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 7 12/18/08 

7.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 

 7.1 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule shall not replace any 

recordkeeping or reporting requirement contained in an operating permit or in a 

District, State, or Federal rule or regulation. 

 7.2 Any stationary source previously exempt from the recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements of this rule in accordance with section 5.4 of this rule, shall comply 

with applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule if the 

stationary source exceeds the quantities specified in sections 5.4.1, or 5.4.2 of this 

rule. 

 7.3 Immediately after the effective date of this rule, the owner or operator of a stationary 

source subject to this rule shall comply with any applicable recordkeeping 

requirements in this section. 

 7.4 Any additional information requested by the APCO shall be submitted to the APCO 

within 30 days of the date of request. 

 

 7.5 Except for stationary sources operating under the alternative operational limits of 

this rule, the owner or operator shall comply with the following recordkeeping 

requirements: 

 7.5.1 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall keep 

and maintain records for each permitted emission unit or groups of permitted 

emission units sufficient to determine actual emissions. Such information 

shall be summarized in a monthly log, maintained on site by the owner or 

operator for five years, and be made available to District, CARB, or EPA 

staff upon request. (In some cases it may be appropriate to keep records on 

groups of emissions units which are connected in series. Examples are 

internal combination engines in the oil fields with a common fuel line, or a 

series of paint spray booths with a common feed.) 

 7.5.2 Coating/Solvent Emission Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contain 

a coating/solvent emission unit or uses a coating, solvent, ink or adhesive 

shall keep and maintain the following records: 

 7.5.2.1 A current list of all coatings, solvents, inks and adhesives in 

use. This list shall include: information on the 

manufacturer, brand, product name or code, VOC content in 

grams per liter or pounds per gallon, HAPs content in grams 

per liter or pounds per gallon, or manufacturer's product 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 8 12/18/08 

specifications, material VOC content reports or laboratory 

analyses providing this information; 

 7.5.2.2 A description of any equipment used during and after 

coating/solvent application, including type, make and model; 

maximum design process rate or throughput; control 

device(s) type and description (if any); and a description of 

the coating/solvent application/drying method(s) employed; 

 7.5.2.3 A monthly log of the consumption of each solvent (including 

solvents used in clean-up and surface preparation), coating, 

ink and adhesive used; and 

 7.5.2.4 All purchase orders, invoices, and other documents to 

support information in the monthly log. 

 7.5.3 Organic Liquid Storage Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

a permitted organic liquid storage unit shall keep and maintain the following 

records: 

 7.5.3.1 A monthly log identifying the liquid stored and monthly 

throughput; and 

 7.5.3.2 Information on the tank design and specifications including 

control equipment. 

 7.5.4 Combustion Emission Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

a combustion emission unit shall keep and maintain the following records: 

 7.5.4.1 Information on equipment type, make and model, maximum 

design process rate or maximum power input/output, 

minimum operating temperature (for thermal oxidizers) and 

capacity, control device(s) type and description (if any) and 

all source test information; and 

 7.5.4.2 A monthly log of hours of operation, fuel type, fuel usage, 

fuel heating value (for non-fossil fuels; in terms of BTU/lb or 

BTU/gal), percent sulfur for fuel oil and coal, and percent 

nitrogen for coal. 

 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 9 12/18/08 

7.5.5 Emission Control Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

an emission control unit shall keep and maintain the following records: 

 7.5.5.1 Information on equipment type and description, make and 

model, and emission units served by the control unit; 

 7.5.5.2 Information on equipment design including where 

applicable: pollutant(s) controlled; control effectiveness; 

maximum design or rated capacity; inlet and outlet 

temperatures, and concentrations for each pollutant

controlled; catalyst data (type, material, life, volume, space 

velocity, ammonia injection rate and temperature); baghouse 

data (design, cleaning method, fabric material, flow rate, 

air/cloth ratio); electrostatic precipitator data (number of 

fields, cleaning method, and power input); scrubber data 

(type, design, sorbent type, pressure drop); other design data 

as appropriate; all source test information; and 

 7.5.5.3 A monthly log of hours of operation including notation of 

any control equipment breakdowns, upsets, repairs, 

maintenance and any other deviations from design 

parameters. 

 7.5.6 General Emission Unit 

 The owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule that contains 

an emission unit not included in section 7.5.2 through 7.5.4 above shall keep 

and maintain the following records: 

 

 7.5.6.1 Information on the process and equipment including the 

following: equipment type, description, make and model; 

maximum design process rate or throughput; control 

device(s) type and description (if any); 

 7.5.6.2 Any additional information requested in writing by the 

APCO; 

 7.5.6.3 A monthly log of operating hours, each raw material used 

and its amount, each product produced and its production 

rate; and 

 7.5.6.4 Purchase orders, invoices, and other documents to support 

information in the monthly log. 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 10 12/18/08 

 7.5.7 At the time of annual District review of a permit to operate under Rule 2520, 

each owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall submit 

to the District a process statement. The statement shall be signed by the 

owner or operator and certify that the information provided is accurate and 

true. 

 

 7.6 Upon choosing to operate a stationary source subject to this rule under any one 

alternative operational limit, the owner or operator shall operate the stationary 

source in compliance with the alternative operational limit as prescribed in section 

6.2 and shall comply with the following recordkeeping and reporting requirements: 

 

 7.6.1 The owner or operator shall report within 24 hours to the APCO any 

exceedance of the alternative operational limit. 

 7.6.2 The owner or operator shall maintain all purchase orders, invoices, and other 

documents to support information required to be maintained in a monthly 

log. Records required under this section shall be maintained on site for five 

years and be made available to District or EPA staff upon request. 

 7.6.3 Gasoline Dispensing Facility Equipment with Phase I and II Vapor Recovery 

Systems 

 The owner or operator shall operate the gasoline dispensing equipment in 

compliance with the following requirements: 

 7.6.3.1 A monthly log of gallons of gasoline dispensed in the 

preceding month with a monthly calculation of the total 

gallons dispensed in the previous 12 months shall be kept on 

site. 

 7.6.3.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

 7.6.4 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Unit 

 The owner or operator shall operate the degreasing or solvent-using unit(s) 

in compliance with the following requirements: 

 7.6.4.1 A monthly log of amount and type of solvent used in the 

preceding month with a monthly calculation of the total 

gallons used in the previous 12 months shall be kept on site. 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 11 12/18/08 

 7.6.4.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

 7.6.5 Paint Spraying Unit 

 The owner or operator shall operate the paint spraying unit(s) in compliance 

with the following requirements: 

 7.6.5.1 A monthly log of the gallons of VOC-containing materials 

used in the preceding month with a monthly calculation of 

the total gallons used in the previous 12 months shall be kept 

on site. 

 7.6.5.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

 7.6.6 Diesel-Fueled Emergency Standby Engine(s) with Output Less Than 1,000 

Brake Horsepower 

 The owner or operator shall operate the emergency standby engine(s) in 

compliance with the following requirements: 

 7.6.6.1 A monthly log of hours of operation, gallons of fuel used, 

and a monthly calculation of the total hours operated and 

gallons of fuel used in the previous 12 months shall be kept 

on site. 

 7.6.6.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be submitted to the APCO at 

the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or operator 

shall certify that the log is accurate and true. 

8.0 Violations 

 8.1 Failure to comply with any of the applicable provisions of this rule shall constitute a 

violation of this rule. Each day during which a violation of this rule occurs is a 

separate offense. 

 8.2 A stationary source subject to this rule shall be subject to applicable federal 

requirements for a major source, including Rule 2520 when the conditions specified 

in either subsections 8.2.1 or 8.2.2 below, occur: 
SJVUAPCD 2530 - 12 12/18/08 

 8.2.1 Commencing on the first day following every 12-month period in which the 

stationary source exceeds a limit specified in section 6.1 above and any 

applicable alternative operational limit specified in section 6.2, above, or 

 8.2.2 Commencing on the first day following every 12-month period in which the 

owner or operator can not demonstrate that the stationary source is in 

compliance with the limits in section 6.1 above or any applicable alternative 

operational limit specified in section 6.2 above. 

 8.3 The APCO shall evaluate a stationary source's compliance with the emission 

limitations in section 6.1 above as part of the District's annual permit review process 

required by Health & Safety Code section 42301(e). In performing the evaluation, 

the APCO shall consider any annual process statement submitted pursuant to section 

7.0 reporting requirements. In the absence of valid continuous emission monitoring 

data or source test data, actual emissions shall be calculated using emissions factors 

approved by the EPA, CARB, or the APCO. 
PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

NOTICE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN 

THE UNDERSIGNED SAYS: 

I am a citizen of the United States 

and a resident of San Joaquin 

County; I am over the age of 18 

years and not a part to or interested 

in the above-entitled matter. I am the 

principal clerk of the printer of THE 

RECORD, a newspaper of general 

publication, printed and published 

daily in the City of Stockton, County 

of San Joaquin and which newspaper 

has been adjudged a newspaper of 

general circulation in the City of 

Stockton and the County of San 

Joaquin by the Superior Court of the 

County of San Joaquin, State of 

California, under the date of 

February 26, 1952, File No. 52857, 

San Joaquin County Records; that 

the notice of which the annexed is a 

printed copy (set in type not smaller 

than nonpareil), has been published 

in each regular and entire issue of 

said newspaper and not in any 

supplement thereof on the following 

dates, 

To wit , Oct. 22 

All in the year, 2008 

I declare under penalty of perjury 

that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Execute on 0ct.22~ ,2008 

In Stockton California 

Laurie Costello 
DECLARATION OF PUBLICATION 

(C.C.P. S2015.5) 

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident 

Of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of 

Eighteen years, and not a party to or interested 

In the above entitle matter. I am a printer and 

Principal clerk of the publisher 

of THE MODEST0 BEE, printed in the City 

of MODESTO, County of STANISLAUS, 

State of California, daily, for which said 

newspaper has been adiudged a newspaper of 

general circulation by the Superior Court of the 

County of STAN ISLAUS, State of California, 

Under the date of February 25,1951, Action 

No. 46453; that the notice of which the annexed is 

a printed copy, has been published in each issue 

there of on the following dates, to wit: 

Oct 22,2008 

I certify (or declare) under penalty of periury That the foregoing is true and correct and that 

This declaration was executed at 

MODESTO, California on 

October 22nd, 2008 

(Signature) 

SAN JOAQUINVALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

DISTRICT 

NOTICEOF PUBLICHEARINGON 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 

RULESAND REGULATIONS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on December 18, 2008, at 9:00 am, or as 

soon thereafter as may be heard, at 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue, 

Fresno, California. The public 

hearing mavalso beattended through 

videoteleconferencing at San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

Districrs regional offices at 2700 "M 

Street in Bakersfield, California, and 

at 4800 Enterprise Wav in Modesto, 

California. At the said hearing, the 

Districrs Governing Board will 

consideramending ri~lesaffecting the 

counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, 

Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus and Tulare. The following 

actions w~ll be considered at the said 

hearing: 

Amend Rule2201 (NewandModified 

StationarvSource Review Rule) and 

Amend Rule2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that 

the adopted rules w~lt be submitted 

through the California Air Resources 

Board to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agencvfor 

incorporation as wrtof theCalifornia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The proposed actionswould constitute 

aSI P revision. 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that 

all interested persons desiring to be 

heord or present evidence on the said 

matters may appear at the said 

hearing. Interested persons may view 

the proposed rules at the District 

offices at 1990 East Gettysburg 

Avenue in Fresno, 2700 "M Street in 

Bakersfield, and 4800 Enterprise Wav 

in Modesto, aswell ason-lineat: 

www.valleyair.orgiworkshowbubli 

c~workshops~idx.htrn 

Copies of the proposed rules and 

related documents will be made 

available no later than October 13, 

2008. To obtain copies of the 

documents, please check the web 

address above, call (559) 230-5800, or FAX your request to Lynn Sargenti at 

(559) 230-6061. 

Written comments should be 

addressed to Carlos Garcia at 

SJVUAPCD, 1990 East Gettvsburs 

Avenue, Fresno, CA 937260244 and 

must be received bv 5:00 pm on November 12, 2008. For additional 

information, contact Mr. Garcia bv 

phone at (559) 230-5900 or ernail at 

~arlos.garcia@valle~air.org. 

Pub Dates Oct22,2008 

RECEIVED 

OCT 2 ? 2008 
Proof of Publication 

(2015.5 C.C.P.) 

Proof of Publication 

,, - :w &N C ?-_? 

i: 3.P 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss. 

County of Merced ) 

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the 

County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, 

and not a party to or interested in the above entitled 

matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the 

Merced Sun-Star, a newspaper of general circulation, 

printed and published in the City of Merced, County of 

Merced, and which newspaper has been adjudged a 

newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court 

of the County of Merced, State of California, under the 

date of July 14, 1964, Case Number 33224 that the 

notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been 

published in each regular and entire issue of said 

newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the 

following dates, to wit: 

OC TOBER 22, 2008 

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that 

the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signature 

Date: OCTOBER 22, 2008 

This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON 

PROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTO 

RULES AND REGULATIONS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a 

public hearing will be held on December 18,2008, at 9:00 am, or as 

soon thereafter as may be heard, at 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue, 

Fresno, California. The public hearing may also be attended through 

video teleconferencing at San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District's regional offices at 

2700 "Mu Street in Bakersfield, California, and at 4800 Enterprise Way 

in Modesto, California. At the said 

hearing, the District's Governing 

Board will consider amending rules 

affecting the counties of Fresno, 

Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San 

Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare. 

The following actions will be considered at the sa~d hearing: 

Amend Rule 2201 (New and 

Modifled Stationary Source Review Rule) and 

Amend Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that 

the adopted rules will be submitted 

through the California Air Resources Board to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for 

incolporation as part of the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The proposed actions would 

constitute a SIP revision. 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that 

all interested persons desiring to be 

heard or present evidence on the 

said matters may appear at the said 1% b' hearing. Interested persons may 

view the proposed rules at the District offices at 1990 East Gettysburg 

Avenue in Fresno, 2700 "M Street 

in Bakersfield, and 4800 Enterprise 

Way in Modesto, as well as on-line 

at: 

www.valleyair.orglworkshops/pu 

bllc-workshops-idx.Mm 

Copies of the proposed rules and 

related documents w~ll be made 

available no later than October 13, 

2008. To obtain copies of the documents, please check the web address above, call (559) 230-5800, or FAX your request to Lynn Sargenti at (559) 230-6061. 

Written comments should be addressed to Carlos Garcia at 

SJVUAPCD, 1990 East Gettysburg 

Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726-0244 

and must be received by 5:00 pm 

on November 12, 2008. For additional information, contact Mr Garcia by phone at (559) 230-5900 or 

email at 

carlos.garciaOvalleyair.org. 

Legal October 22,2008 

Proof of Publication - Merced Sun-Star, P.O. Box 739, Merced, California 95341 - Phone 722-1511 Adjudged a 

newspaper of general circulation by court decree No. 33224 dated July 14,1964 
Proof of Publication 

(201 5.5 C.C.P.) 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 

DEC. 18, 2008 

RE: RULES 2201, 2530 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss. 

County of Madera 1 

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County 

aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party 

to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal 

clerk of the printer of the Madera Tribune, a newspaper of 

general circulation, published in the City of Madera, County of 

Madera, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper 

of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of 

Madera, State of California, under the date of November 9, 

1966, Case Number 4875 that the notice, of which the annexed 

is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and enlire 

issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on 

the following dates, to wit: 

OCTOBER 21, 2008 

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that 

the foregoing is true and correct. 

L\c,b, PCC 

Signature 

Date: October 21, 2008 

RECEIVED 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES 

AND REGULATIONS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a publ~c 

hearing will be held on December 18, 

2008, at 9:00 am, or as soon thereafter as may be heard, at 1990 East Geltysburg 

Avenue, Fresno, Califomia. The public 

hearing may also be attended through.video teleconferencing at San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Ponution Control District's reglbnal ~FHces, at 2700 'M-treet in Bakersfield, California, and at 4800 Enterprise Way in Modesto, Califomia. At the 

said hear~ng, the District's Governing 

Board w~li consider amending rules affecting the counties of Fresno, Kqrn, Kings, 

Madera, Merced. San Joaquin, Stanislaus 

and Tulare. The following actions will be 

considered at the said hearing: 

Amend Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule) and 

Amend Rule 2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the 

adopted rules w~ll be submitted through 

the California Air Resources Board to the 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency for incorporation as part of the 

Caliorn~a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The proposed actions would constitute a SIP revision. 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all'interested persons desiring to be heard or 

present ev~dence on the said mattersmay 

appear at the said hearing. Interested persons may view the proposed rules at the 

D~strict offices at 1990 East Gettysburg 

Avenue In Fresno, 2700 "MM: Street in Bakersfield, and 4800 Entgrpnse Way in 

Modesto, as well as on-line at: 

www.valleyair.orgEworkshopdpubIlc-workshops-ldx.htm 

Copes of the proposed rules and related 

documents will,be made available no later 

than October 19, 2008. To.oUain copies 

of the' documents, plq3 6hGk $4 web 

address above, call (55Il) 230-5800, or 

FAX your request to ~yrh Sqrgenti at 

Proof of Publ~cat~on - The Madera Tr~bune, P 0. Box 269, Madera, CA 93639 - Wnlten comments should bead®@ to 

Adjudged a newspaper of general c~rculat~on bycourt decree No 4875 dated Nc Carlos Garc~a at SJVUAVD, 1&0 East 

The Madera Tribune Gettysburg Avenue, Frew, CA 93726- 

0244 wd must be received by 5:00 pm on 

November 12, 2008. For additional information, contact Mr. Garcia by phone at 

(559) 230-5900 or email at 

carlos.garcia@val~eyair.org. 

NO. 1 1433 - 0~t. 21.2008 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ATTN FINANCE DEPARTMENT 

1990 E GETTYSBURG ........... AVE ......... .............. ................... - ........................................................................... " " ", --- 

...................................................................................................................................................................................... FRESNO ,, CA ......................................... 93726 

COUNTY OF FRESNO 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

EXHIBIT A. 535."' 

- 

PUBLIC NOTICE 

#I79066 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLtUTlON CONTROL DISTRICT 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULES AND REGULATIONS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public heor~ng w~ll be held on December 18, 2008, at 

9:00 am, or as soon thereafter as moy be heord, at 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue, 

Frerno, C~lifornia, The publ~c hear~ng moy also be attended through v~deo tgleconferenc. 

ing at Son Joaquln Volley Un~fied Air Pollulion Control D~strict's reg~onol offices at 2700 

"M' Street in Bakersf~eld, Cal~fornla, ond at 4800 Enterprise Way In Modesto, California. 

At the sold hearing, the Distr~ct's Govern~ng Board will consider omend~ng rules affecting 

the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Mqdera, Merced, Son Jooquin, Stanlslaus ond Tulare. 

The following aclions will be cons~dered ot the sold hearing: 

Amend Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) and 

Amend RuJe 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the adopted rules will be submined through the 

Col~forn~o Air Resources Board to the United States Env~ronmentol Protection Agency for 

ncorporation as part of the California Stote lmplementot~on Plon (SIP). The proposed 

actions would consl~tute a SIP revis~on. 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all ~nterested persons desir~ng to be heord or present 1 evidence on the said matters may appeot at the soid heoring. Interested persons may 

vlew the proposed rules ot the Distri~t off~ces at 1990 East Gettysburg Avenue in Fresno, 

2700 "Mu Street in Bakersfield, and 4800 Enterprise Way In Modesto, as well os on.l~ne 

~.valleyall'.org/wo~hopdpubllc~worhhops~idx.htm 

Cop~es of the proposed rules and reloted documents w~ll be made available no later than 

October 13, 2008, To obtain copies of the documents, please check the web address 

above, coil (559) 230-5800, or FAX your request to Lynn Sargenti at (559) 230.6061. 

Wr~tten comments should be addressed to Carlos GO~CIO ot SJVUAPCD, 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726-0244 and must be rece~ved by 

5:00 pm on November 12, 2008. For additional informot~on, contact Mr, Gorcia by 

phone ot (559) 230-5300 or emoil at carlos.aarcio$valleva~r or . (?UBt October 2Zr 2008) 

FPROOFAD 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION 

The undersigned states: 

McClatchy Newspapers in and on all dates herein stated 

was a corporation, and the owner and publisher of The 

Fresno Bee. 

The Fresno Bee is a daily newspaper of general 

circulation now published, and on all-the-dates herein 

stated was published in the City of Fresno, County of 

Fresno, and has been adjudged a newspaper of general 

circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Fresno, 

State of California, under the date of November 22, 1994, 

Action No. 520058-9. 

The undersigned is and on all dates herein mentioned 

was a citizen of the United States, over the age of 

twenty-one years, and is the principal clerk of the printer 

and publisher of said newspaper; and that the notice, a 

copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit A, hereby 

made a part hereof, was published in The Fresno Bee in 

each issue thereof (in type not smaller than nonpareil), on 

the following dates. 

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated 
Yk 1UHVlI' VI!' k'Uk3LlCA'I'lVN ',. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // ACCOUNT NUMBER 1658 

AD NUMBER 0000103403-01 

AD SIZE 2.0 X 5.5438" 

AD AMOUNT $91.47 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Dist. 

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave, Attn: Administrative Services, 

Fresno, CA 93726 

PUBLICATION SENT 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF KINGS 

I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND A RESIDENT OF THE 

COUNTY FORESAID; I AM OVER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN YEARS, AND 

NOT A PART TO OR INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. 

I AM THE PRINCIPAL CLERK OF HANFORD SENTINEL, INC., A 

NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED 

DAILY IN THE CITY OF HANFORD, COUNTY OF KINGS, AND WHICH 

NEWSPAPER HAS BEEN ADJUDGED A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL 

CIRCULATION BY THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, UNDER THE DATE OF OCTOBER 23, 1951, 

CASE NUMBER 11623, 

THAT I KNOW FROM MY OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THE NOTICE, OF 

WHICH THE ANNEXED IS A PRINTED COPY (SET IN TYPE NOT 

SMALLER THAN NONPAREIL), HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN EACH 

REGULAR AND ENTIRE ISSUE OF SAID NEWSPAPER AND NOT IN ANY 

SUPPLEMENT THEREOF ON THE FOLLOWING DATES, TO WIT: 

PUBLISHED ON: 10/21/2008 

FILED ON: 10/21/2008 

I CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT 

THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 

DATED AT KINGS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 

I* . 3f- 2 (198 THIS DAY r;?B-j OF l' C- 11- I -'a 1~~ 

,4 

AD4 103403 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO RULES AND REGULATIONS 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing w~ll be held on 

December 18. 2008. at 9a am, or as soon thereafter as may be , 

heard, at 1990 East Getlysburg Avenue, Fres'no, California. The . pdb ic hearing may also be attended through video teleconferencing 

at San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Gontrd D~strict's regional 

ofices at 2700 W' Street in Bakersfield, Calfornia, and at 4800 Enterprse Way in Modesto, California. At the s&d hearing, the District's Governing Board will consider amending rules affecting the 

counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus and TL are. Tne following actions will be considered at 

the said heanng: 

Amend Rule 2201 (New end Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule) and 

Amend Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

I\OTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the adopted rules will be subrnitted througn the Califomia Air Resources Board to the United States 

Env'ronmental Proteciion Agency for incorporation as part of the 

Ca,iiomia State Implementation Plan (SIP). Tne proposed actions 

would conshtute a SIP revision. 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that all 'nterested persons des~nng to 

be neard or present evidence on the said matters may appear at the 

said hearing. Interested persons may view the proposed rules at 

the District ofices at 1990 East Gettysburg Aven~e in Fresno, 2700 

'M' Street m Bakersfield, and 4800 Enterprise Way in Modesto, as 

well as on-line at: 

www.valleyair.or~~rkshops/public~workshops~idx.Mm 

Copies of the proposed ndes and related documents will be made 

ava~lable no .ater than October 13. 2008. To obtain copies of the 

documents, please check the web address above, call (559) 230- 

5800, or FAX your request to Lynn Sargenti at (559) 230-6061. 

Written. comments should be addressed to Carlos Garcia at 

SJVUAPCD, 1990 East Getlysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726- 

0244 and must be received by 5:00 prn on November 12,2008. For 

addibonal ~nforrnation, contact Mr. Garcia by phone at (559) 230- 

5900 or emall at canos.garcia@valleyair.org. 

Publ~sh: October 21,2008 
Visalia Newspapers, Inc. 

P.O. Box 31, Visalia, CA 93279 

559-735-3200 1 Fax 559-735-321 0 

State Of California ss: 

County of Tulare 

Certificate of Publication 

Advertiser: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTI 

1990 E GETTYSBURG AVE 

FRESNO , CA 937261 

SAN JOAOUIN VALLEY 

UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION 

CONTROL DISTRICT 

I 

Amend ~uie 2530 

(Fgderally Enforceable 

Potential to Emit) 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC 

HEARING ON PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS TO RULES 

AND REGULATION6 I 

I 

I 

I 

, 

' NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN 

that the adopted rules wtll 

be submmed through the California Air Resources 

Board to the United Sys 

Environmental Protaotlon 

Agency for incorporation as 

part of the California W 

lmplementati~n Plan ISIP). 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN 

that a public hearing will he 

held MI December 18.2008, 

at 9:W am, or as soon thereafter as may be heard. 

at 1990 East Geltysburg 

Avenue, Fresno, California. 

The public hearing may also - be attended through video 

teleconferencing at San 

Jodquin Valley Unilied Air 

Pollution Control District's 

regional offices at 2700 'W 

Street in BakersfieId, California, and at 48M) Enterprise Way in Modesto, California. At the said hearing, 

The proposed actidis 

would constitute a SIP reuislon. 

the Districfs , Governing 

Board will cons~der amending rules affecting the 

cpnties of Fresno, Kern, 

Klngs, Madera, Merced. 

San Joaquin, Stanislau's 

and Tulare. The following 

actions will be considmil 

atthe said hearing: 

Amend Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) and 

NOTICE !S FURTHER GIVEN 

that all Interested parsons 

dbsithg to be heard or ptesent evitlebce on the 

said matters may appear at 

Ithe saidhearing. Interested 

persons may view the prolposed rirles at the District 

I offices at i990 East Gettysburg Avenue in Fresng, 2700 

"M" Street in Bakersfield, 

and 4800 Enterprise Wa in Modesto, as well as oAne 

at: 

I 

l Copies of the proposed 

rules and related documents will be made available na later than October 

i3j 2008. To obtain copies'of I the documents, please 

I check the web address 

above, call (559) 230-5800, or FAXyour re uestto Lynn 

1 Sargenti at (55a 23Jb6061. 

Written comments should be abbressed to Carlos Garcia at$JVUAPCO,1990 Last 

Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, 

CA 937264244 and must be 

received by 5:W pm on November 12.2W8. For additional inforvation, contact I Mr. Barc~a by phone at 

(559) 230-5900 or emal at 

carIos.garcia@valleyair.org 

Publish: Oct 22,2008 

67941 

RE: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION 

I, Anna Vargas, Accounting Clerk, for the below mentioned 

newspaper(s), am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the 

United States and not a party to, or have interest in this matter. I 

hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared in said 

newspaper on the following dates: 

Newspaper: Visalia Times-Delta 

I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of said paper which is 

printed and published in the City of Visalia, County of Tulare, State 

of California. The Visalia Times Delta was adjudicated a newspaper 

of general circulation on July 25, 2001 by Tulare County Superior 

Court Order No. 41-20576. The Tulare Advance Register was 

adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation on July 25, 2001 by 

Superior Court Order No. 52-43225. 

I declare under penalty of periury that the foregoing is true and 

correct. ~xecuted on this ~m- day of 2008 

in Visalia, California. 

Declarant LJ 
;g";F- ;. 

.*L-iTh 

**".-&% /I//& 

PROOF OF PUBLICATION QCT 2 : 2008 

The BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN 

P.O. BOX 440 

BAKERSFIELD, CA 93302 

" "'.-*'p 

Ad Number: 1 10904 1 8 po #: & &mf220 

Edition: TBC Run Times 1 

Class Code Legal Notices 

Start Date 10/22/2008 Stop Date 10/22/2008 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY A.P.C.D. Billing Lines 56 Inches 336.92 

1990 E GETTYSBURG FRED BATES Total Cost $ 203.48 Account I SANS 1 

FH!,SNO, CA 93726 Billing SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY A.P.C.D. 

Address 1990 E GETTY SBURGFRED BATES 

FRESN0,CA 93726 

-- 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF KEKN 

I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND A RESIDENT 

OF THE COUNTY AFORESAID: I AM OVER THE AGE OF 

EIGHTEEN YEARS, AND NOT A PARTY TO OR INTERESTED 

IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED MATTER. I AM THE ASSISTANT 

PRINCIPAL CLERK OF THE PRINTER OF THE BAKERSFIELD 

CALIFORNIAN, A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL 

CIRCULATION, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED DAILY IN THE 

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD COUNTY OF KERN, 

AND WHICH NEWSPAPER HAS BEEN ADJUDGED A 

NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION BY THE SUPERIOR 

COURT OF THE COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 5,1952, CASE NUMBER 57610; 

THAT THE NOTICE, OF WHICH THE ANNEXED IS A PRINTED 

COPY, HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN EACH REGULAR AND 

ENTIRE ISSUE OF SAID NEWSPAPER 

AND NOT IN ANY SUPPLEMENT THEREOF ON THE 

FOLLOWING DATES, TO WIT: 10/22/08 

ALL IN YEAR 2008 

I CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY 

THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 

DATED AT BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA 

I Solicitor I.D.: 0 

First Text 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION 

Ad Number 1 10904 18 

I Amend,Rule 2201 

(NW and ~odified nona nary and Source Rcview Rule) I 

Amend Rule 2530 

(Pederally Enforceable Potentid lo Emid 

NOTICE IS ~)KI MENGIVEN that tl~c rdoptedrules willbe 

Ihroug11 the CaliforZa Air K~psounrs Board to tile 

Uflfcd Stah Bnvrrolnncntul Protrc!lon Agl'nw for 

ln~rperatim~ as part of the Galifarn&aStale Jmpl~menta~oa man (~11))). 'The proposed actruns wotlld constitute a SIP 

revisko11. 

~OTICE I$ PUN IIEK GIVm that allinterrstedpr~uns d~wlg b be heard or rcsent evidc~ice on the said matters may 8 ,pea atthe wid Rcaririag. Intrrrstrd pelsons may vitv,vbcpropoard rule dt tlw ~istfict offies dt 1990 i 

Gettysbsr Aveilnl'ill i%sncr, 2700 "M" Sltts~tlll 

Baka&elfi, ar~d $800 Wttrrpdsc Wry Ill Modcsto, dS well 1 RS 1111-1I11c at: \ www..i.lll~yair.orgiwo~ksh~p~/p~b1ic~~~~~k~1~~1~~Sidxdx~1~ 

Copies of tj~t* ropnsttd rulcs dlrd rrlatt'd dO(llm~!li~ dl be 

made avala~[ ~lolatrrthm Oetollc~ 113.2008 10 "btRftl 

,,pies of thv doc~tments, please chrck llic3 wch address 

ab,~ve, eall(55'3) 230 5800, or FAX y0ltr~q~~st to b'~l 

Sagedl 81(559)230-6061. 

~flttrn colnmsnts should br addressed to Cddos GiuCld ai 1 

SNUAPCU. 1990 East GettysBurg Avenlle, Hrcq~lo. CA 

93726 0244 and must bcreccivedby 5:OOplll On 

Novelnhef 12,2008. Por addlllol~ali~~formation, colltdct ~r. Gardaily phone at (559) 230.5900 or cmallat 

caslos.$arcla@vnllcyair or$ , Orlrrhet 22,2008 (1 10904t8) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

FINAL STAFF REPORT 

Proposed Amendments to 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) 

and 

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

Prepared by: Carlos Garcia, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

Reviewed by: David Warner, Director of Permit Services, and 

 George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer 

December 18, 2008 

I. SUMMARY 

Rule 2201, New and Modified Stationary Source Review (NSR), provides the mechanism 

for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) to issue permits 

to new and expanding businesses. Its primary purpose is to minimize and mitigate 

emissions associated with new growth. The District’s NSR program is designed to meet 

both state and federal NSR requirements for nonattainment areas, and applies to new 

and modified stationary sources that emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than ten 

microns (PM-10), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and other pollutants 

subject to District permitting requirements. 

On April 30, 2007, the District adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 

federal 8-hour standard and requested the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin be 

redesignated to “extreme”. The 2007 Ozone Plan was then submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board (ARB) to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 

November 17, 2007. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and implementing regulations 

require that 8-hour extreme nonattainment areas incorporate certain requirements into 

their NSR rules. The District is proposing amendments to Rule 2201 to change the 

major source and major modification thresholds and to make other changes to address 

these federal 8-hour ozone extreme nonattainment requirements, and we expect the 

revised rules to be adopted in December 2008. 

Also as a result of the District’s 8-hour ozone extreme nonattainment status, the District 

must make changes to its Title V permitting program. Specifically, Rule 2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential to Emit) will also be amended to reflect the 8-hour extreme 

nonattainment designation’s major source threshold requirements for the ozone 

precursors, NOx and VOC. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 2 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RULES BEING AMENDED 

A. Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule): 

The District’s NSR rule provides a regulatory mechanism for allowing continued 

economic growth while minimizing the amount of emission increases due to this growth. 

Rule 2201 applies to all new stationary sources and all modifications to existing 

stationary sources that are subject to District permitting requirements. 

The District’s NSR program is designed to meet both the state and federal NSR 

requirements for nonattainment areas and applies to new and modified stationary 

sources that emit NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, PM10 and other pollutants subject to District 

permitting requirements pursuant to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required). 

Key features of Rule 2201 include: 

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT): mandates emission controls to 

minimize emission increases above de minimis values; 

• Emission offsets: requires emissions above specified offset threshold levels to be 

mitigated with either concurrent reductions or past reductions which have been 

banked as emission reduction credits (ERC); 

• Public notification: a 30 or 45 day notice period prior to issuance of an Authority to 

Construct (ATC) to garner comments on projects that result in emissions above 

specified levels; 

• Required elements for Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate and administrative 

requirements for the processing of NSR applications. 

B. Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

The primary purpose of Rule 2530 is to provide facilities whose actual emissions are 

consistently low to employ mechanisms to avoid Title V permitting requirements. 

Facilities that maintain sufficient records to demonstrate that actual emissions from the 

facility are less than 50 percent of all major source emissions thresholds are considered 

to have a “federally enforceable potential to emit” that is less than the District’s major 

source, or Title V, thresholds. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 3 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

III. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS 

A. Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

On April 30, 2004, EPA issued the 8-hour ozone standard designations (69 FR 23951), 

in which EPA originally designated the SJVAB as a serious nonattainment area. 

However, as outlined in the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan, the District determined that the 

only option to reach attainment was to be classified as an “extreme nonattainment” area 

for the 8-hour ozone standard. The Federal Clean Air Act NSR requirements for 

extreme nonattainment areas state that we must adopt an NSR rule that meets the 

Sections 182 (e) and (f). Such rules must reflect the extreme nonattainment area 

requirements, as outlined in Table 1. 

 

The FCAA requires extreme ozone nonattainment areas to define a major source as 

one whose emissions of ozone precursors meet or exceed 10 tons per year of NOx or 

VOC. This reduced major source threshold affects implementation of two major 

permitting programs: New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permitting. 

To incorporate the extreme nonattainment classification for the 8-hour standard, Rules 

2201 and 2530 will be amended. The sections that will be affected in each rule are 

outlined as follows. 

TABLE 1 

 New Source Review Requirements for Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

[FCAA Sections 182 (e) and (f)] 

Requirement 

Category Extreme Area Provisions 

Major Stationary 

Source 

Includes any stationary source or group of sources located within a continuous area and 

under common control that emits, or has the potential to emit, at least 10 tons per year 

of VOCs or NOx. 

Modifications to 

Sources 

Any change at a major stationary source that results in any increase in emissions from 

any discrete operation, unit, or other pollutant-emitting activity at the source shall be 

considered a modification from the standpoint of permit requirements unless the 

increase is offset by reductions in the same pollutant from other discrete operations 

within the same source at an offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1. 

Offset Requirement The ratio of total emission reductions of VOCs or NOx to total increased emissions of 

such air pollutant shall be at least 1.5 to 1, except that if the State plan requires all 

existing major sources in the nonattainment area to use federal best available control 

technology for the control of VOCs and NOx, the ratio shall be 1.2 to 1. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 4 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

1. Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule): 

The major source definition in Section 3.24 will be amended to change the major 

source emission thresholds in Table 3-4. In the table, the NOx and VOC thresholds will 

each be changed from 50,000 pounds per year to 20,000 pounds per year. 

Amendments to the federal major modification definition in Section 3.17 will change the 

significance thresholds in Table 3-1. The significance thresholds will be changed from 

50,000 pounds per year to zero (0) pounds per year for both NOx and VOC. Section 

3.23 is renamed “SB 288 Major Modification” to capture the intent of maintaining this 

definition in its pre-SB 288 condition (see SB 288 discussion in section IV.B below). 

Also, section 3.17 will be more clearly tied to the federal requirements by referencing 

the appropriate federal regulations and law. In addition, the Plantwide Applicability 

Limit (PAL) section, 3.17.2, will be clarified, as PAL exclusions can not be applied to 

ozone precursors in extreme ozone nonattainment areas, per 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1)(ii). 

Section 4.8, the distance offsets ratio within 15 miles of the new or modified emissions 

unit’s Stationary Source would be changed from 1.3 to 1.5 for major increases of NOx 

or VOC. Alternatively the second option to address the 8-hour extreme area federal 

offset requirement would be to require all existing major sources to apply best available 

control technology, as defined in Section 169(3) of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. The 

District does not have such a BACT requirement in the state plan at this time. In 

addition, because SB 288 does not allow us to relax our current offsetting requirements 

(see section IV.B of this report), the 1.2 offsetting ratio would be very limited, to 

reductions supplied at the site of the increased emissions. Therefore, we are not 

pursuing this option at this time, although language is added to allow us to pursue it 

further at a future date. 

If we do pursue the latter option, a new District rule may be written, and submitted as 

part of a revision to the State Implementation Plan, to require federal BACT for all 

existing major sources. Federal BACT as defined in Section 169(3) of the FCAA is less 

stringent than District BACT as defined in Rule 2201. Alternatively, the District may 

pursue an analysis that shows all existing major sources in the San Joaquin Valley 

currently have controls in place that fit the definition of federal BACT. However, until we 

follow one of these paths to a conclusion that all major sources are equipped with 

BACT in the San Joaquin Valley, new major sources and federal major modifications 

must supply NOx and VOC offsets at a 1.5:1 ratio. 

It is important to note that implementing the requirements contained in these rules will 

also implement the identical 1-hour ozone “extreme” nonattainment NSR requirements. 

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppb) had been revoked by EPA, and during the 

implementation of the more health-protective eight-hour standard, EPA stated that 

existing 1-hour NSR requirements were no longer necessary, since there was no 1-hour 

standard upon which to base the requirements. But the Washington DC Circuit Court 

said EPA erred in relaxing the 1-hour ozone NSR requirements and that these NSR 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 5 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

requirements were still applicable, even if the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was no longer in 

effect. Therefore these revisions are also being adopted to implement the 1-hour ozone 

NSR “extreme” nonattainment requirements. 

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

This rule provides exemptions from Title V permitting based on actual emissions, and 

requires recordkeeping and reporting to maintain the exemptions. The recordkeeping 

and reporting exemption is updated for NOx and VOC from 5 tons per year to 2 tons 

per year (both of which are at 20% of the relevant major source thresholds). The 

reporting requirements in Section 5.5.2 will now apply at 2.5 tons per year (25% of the 

major source thresholds) for both NOx and VOC. The emission limitations of Section 

6.1.1 would apply at less than or equal to 5 tons per year (50% of the new thresholds). 

The quantity of emissions in Sections 5.4.2 and 6.2 have been changed to correspond 

with 50% of the extreme NOx and VOC threshold levels. 

2. Prohibitory Rules Applicable to Major Sources 

The major source definition in some District prohibitory rules refer directly to major 

source definition in Rule 2201. Since the major source threshold for NOx and VOC is 

dropping to ten tons per year, sources between 10 and 25 tons per year may become 

subject to these rules. Newly subject sources will have six months after the effective 

date of these rule revisions to submit an application to comply with these rules: 

Rule 4610 (Glass Coating Operations) 

Rule 4693 (Bakery Ovens) 

In addition, two rules reference the Rule 2201 definition of major source, or refer to prior 

major source thresholds. However, the following two rules have no current applicability 

and therefore need not be addressed further at this time: 

Rule 4351 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 1) 

Rule 4501 (Alternative Compliance for Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology (BARCT)) 

B. Permitting of Additional Agricultural Sources 

California Heath and Safety Code (CH&SC), Section 42301.16 requires agricultural 

sources with emissions over one-half a district’s major source thresholds to obtain 

district operating permits. With the proposed changes to the major source definition in 

Rule 2201, agricultural sources whose emissions are above 5 tons per year of NOx or 

VOC will need to obtain a District permit. 

Permits will be required for agricultural sources whose actual emissions are 5 tons per 

year of NOx or VOC, which is a drop from the current permitting threshold of 12.5 tons 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 6 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

per year. The estimated number of additional agricultural sources that will need permits 

is expected to be 350 dairies (with about 2,200 permits) and 150 farms (with about 

1,100 permit units). Newly subject agricultural sources would need to apply for a permit 

to operate within six months of the effective date of the rule, and the District will work 

extensively with the ag industry groups to prepare for and implement a coordinated 

effort to inform the ag community about these permitting requirements, and then file 

timely permit applications. 

C. Title V Permitting Program 

Lowering the major source threshold will subject additional facilities to federal permitting 

requirements under Title V of the FCAA. Lowering the District’s major source threshold 

to 10 tons per year of NOx or VOC would require an estimated 350 more sources to 

obtain Title V permits. Sources whose potential emissions are between 10 and 25 tons 

per year of NOx or VOC would become subject to Title V permitting and will need 

submit a Title V application within one year of the effective date of the rule. No 

changes to Rule 2520 are needed since the major source definition threshold refers to 

Rule 2201. According to federal regulation (40 CFR part 70, section 4(i)(2)(iv)), the 

effective date of these revisions is the date of EPA approval of the revisions. Again, the 

District will implement significant outreach efforts to inform the facilities of these 

permitting requirements, and then to assist them in complying with the revised rules. 

D. Adoption Schedule for NSR Program 

The District’s 2007 Ozone Plan commits the District to adopt a revised Rule 2201, “New 

and Modified Stationary Source Review” (NSR) within one year of adoption of the plan. 

However, ARB’s extensive evaluation of our 2007 Ozone Plan to assure that it 

contained all possible measures took until November 16, 2007, at which time they 

forwarded the plan to the federal EPA. Since there was a possibility of changes to the 

Ozone Plan, including changing the extreme designation to severe, potentially negating 

the need for the rule, we waited for ARB’s final action. We therefore intend to submit 

the revised rule to ARB as quickly as practicable after the District’s December 18, 2008 

board meeting, there being no board meeting in November. 

In fact, the true submittal deadline is outlined in the EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Final Rule (effective January 30, 

2006) provides states three years to submit an approvable NSR program for the 8-hour 

standard. Thus for this requirement, EPA mandates that our NSR program needs to be 

submitted for inclusion into the SIP by January 30, 2009 (70 FR 71618). 

Finally, it is important to understand that federal permitting requirements will be 

triggered regardless of the District’s Rule 2201 adoption progress at the time that EPA 

approves the District’s reclassification to “extreme” nonattainment, as that finding will 

trigger 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, requirements. At the time of this writing, this EPA 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 7 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

action is expected to take place around February 2009. We intend to implement 

Appendix S at that time. We will also be requiring compliance with the current 

provisions of the existing Rule 2201, and we will be using the existing equivalency 

demonstration process of that rule to continue to demonstrate compliance with federal 

“extreme” nonattainment offsetting requirements 

The District conducted a scoping meeting on April 23, 2008 and a workshop on July 29, 

2008, and addressed comments received (see Appendix B). Comments received from 

the public, affected sources, and EPA on the October 16, 2008 receive and file 

proposals are incorporated into the draft rules as appropriate, and full responses are 

seen in the attached Appendix A. The proposed revisions are scheduled for adoption at 

the District’s Governing Board meeting on December 18, 2008, and are expected to 

become effective on the date of EPA approval. 

IV. OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE 8-HOUR EXTREME CLASSIFICATION 

While the proposed changes are relatively straightforward, the ramifications on 

economic growth in the San Joaquin Valley may be severe, especially when considered 

with other NSR issues, as explained below. 

A. Annual Offset Equivalency Demonstration 

One of the main issues for discussion is the annual offset equivalency demonstration 

required by Section 7 of our NSR rule. Because we have different offsetting 

requirements than a federal offsetting program (more stringent in some areas and less 

stringent in others), EPA requires us to demonstrate, on an annual basis, that the 

overall offsetting requirements are at least as stringent as the federal requirements. 

This process allows the District to use several NSR program provisions, such as more 

flexibility in the use of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) and enhanced offsetting 

requirements, which were designed to make the permitting process less burdensome 

for both affected industry and the District while still maintaining compliance with federal 

NSR requirements. As part of an agreement between the EPA and the District, the 

District is tracking the ERCs collected under its NSR program and must make an 

annual demonstration that the ERCs are equivalent to both the amount of surplus 

ERCs, and the total amount of ERCs, which would be collected under a federal NSR 

offsetting program. 

Section 7 of Rule 2201 specifies the tracking and reporting actions involved with the 

annual equivalency demonstration and steps to be taken to correct any ERC shortfalls. 

This section also details the required actions to be taken if an ERC shortfall occurred. 

Rule 2201 has a self-implementing offset shortfall remedy procedure which entails 

following the federal offsetting requirements directly, until the shortfall is eliminated. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 8 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

The system is designed to be invisible to permittees unless equivalency cannot be 

demonstrated and the indicated remedies must be implemented. 

In general, offsets are certified emissions reductions that are used to mitigate emissions 

increases. The District’s offsetting program currently requires offsets for emissions 

increases at facilities with permitted emissions of 10 tons or more per year of VOC or 

NOx. In addition, our rules currently require up to 1.5 pounds of reduction for every 

pound of increase (called a 1.5-to-1 offset ratio). On the other hand, federal offsets in a 

severe nonattainment area are only required after a facility is permitted to emit 25 tons 

per year, at a maximum 1.3-to-1 offset ratio. 

Viewed on this basis alone, our offsetting requirements are more stringent than federal 

offsetting requirements. However, there is another factor. Federal offsetting 

requirements mandate adjustment of certified emissions reductions, at the time that the 

reductions are used to mitigate emissions increases, which adjustment is for rules and 

regulations that have been adopted since the emissions reductions were originally 

created. 

Only new major sources and federal major modifications require such “surplus offsets” 

and it is this “surplus offsets” obligation that is the primary consideration in the annual 

offset equivalency demonstration under Section 7. 

It is important to note that the lower thresholds for new major sources and the 

significance thresholds for federal major modifications that would be proposed under an 

8-hour extreme rule would make it more difficult to demonstrate the District’s annual 

offset equivalency as required by Section 7 of Rule 2201. For instance, some of the 

“extra” offsets that we have traditionally relied on to demonstrate equivalency have 

come from the minor source offsetting of sources permitted at more than 10 tons per 

year of VOC or NOx, while federal surplus offsets would only have been required for 25 

ton and greater sources. Since we now must lower the federal offsetting level to 10 

tons per year, these “extra” district offsets largely disappear. Similarly, the necessitated 

change to federal offset ratios may also eliminate some “extra” District offsets that we 

have traditionally relied on to demonstrate equivalency. 

If we do fail to demonstrate that we have required as many surplus credits as a federal 

program, new major sources and federal major modifications permitted after the failure 

must use surplus offsets for the pollutant that failed the demonstration, until a 

subsequent tracking report once again demonstrates equivalency. 

As an example, nitrogen oxide (NOx) is the pollutant for which failure is most likely. 

Surplus NOx credits make up a small percentage of our banked NOx credits, less than 

10% of the total, likely resulting in the cost of offsetting NOx to become very expensive, 

with new NOx offsets very difficult to generate, as well. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 9 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

Such impacts, and their potential to affect economic growth in the San Joaquin Valley, 

are not being addressed as a part of this rule modification. The District is, however, 

very concerned about these potential impacts, and they will be considered as part of an 

upcoming rule adoption process to begin in early 2009. The District will consider, at 

that time, various options to alleviate the annual offset equivalency demonstration 

issues. We will investigate at least two options: one, a market-based cap-and-trade 

program similar to those in other jurisdictions (like the South Coast’s RECLAIM 

program); or two, a more innovative major-source fee that is used to generate grant 

fund revenue that can be granted to project proponents achieving surplus reductions. 

The former would eliminate the tracking program altogether, while the second would 

likely be used as a mechanism to generate surplus credits sufficient to balance the 

equivalency demonstration. 

B. SB 288

California Health and Safety Code Sections 42500 through 42507 (SB 288) mandates 

that a District’s New Source Review (NSR) rules cannot be made less stringent, in a 

variety of specified areas, than the rules that existed on December 30, 20021

. This 

legislation was crafted and signed into law specifically to prevent Districts from 

implementing any Federal NSR reforms that would have relaxed California’s stringent 

NSR requirements. The state Air Resources Board (ARB) has provided guidance on 

the implementation of SB 288, and has concluded that there are four components of 

NSR that are affected: 

1. NSR applicability determinations. 

2. The definitions of “modification”, “major modification”, “routine maintenance”, and 

“repair or maintenance”. 

3. The calculation methodology, thresholds, or other procedures of new source 

review. ARB further interprets this to apply to baseline determinations, 

calculating emissions changes, offset amounts required and major source and 

major modification thresholds. 

4. On a program-wide basis, the requirement to obtain offsets. 

The first three of these components apply to each given NSR permitting Project. In 

other words, if any of these components are relaxed in that an NSR project under the 

new rule escapes a listed NSR requirement that it would have been subject to under the 

December 30, 2002 version of the NSR rule, it is a prohibited modification under SB 

288. None of the proposed amendments to the District’s NSR program allow relaxation 

of any of these components (nor are there any relaxations of any kind). 

The fourth component, for offsets, is a program-wide component. ARB’s SB 288 

interpretation is that, while offset requirements for a given project may be relaxed, the 

 

1

 There are some narrowly defined exceptions to these “anti-backsliding” provisions, but none apply to this 

rule amendment and therefore the exceptions will not be discussed further in this staff report. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 10 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

District’s program-wide offsetting program must not be relaxed by any rule change. 

ARB has ruled that every Rule 2201 modification since SB 288 was adopted did not 

relax any requirement in any way prohibited by SB 288, or if there was a relaxation of 

program-wide offsetting requirements, it met ARB’s de minimus test. 

These newest proposed modifications are therefore tested against the latest revisions. 

The obvious conclusion is that if these latest revisions are no less stringent than the 

latest NSR rule approved by ARB, they can not be less stringent than the December 30, 

2002 version. These latest revisions do not relax any offsetting requirement, and in fact 

are expected to result in significant increases in the amount of VOC and NOx offsets 

required for future projects after this rule becomes applicable. For instance, since all 

facilities over 10 tons per year will be major sources, and any increase in emissions at 

those sources will be federal major modifications, the offset ratio that will be used is 

1.5:1, even if the offsets come from the same stationary source (currently allowed at 

1.1:1), or within 15 miles of the increase (currently allowed at 1.2:1 or 1.3:1). 

In addition, lowering the major source and the federal major modification thresholds will 

result in many more projects subject to the annual equivalency tracking system, and will 

likely cause failure of the equivalency demonstration in the near term. This will, in turn, 

require the application of surplus-at-time-of-use offsetting requirements for these same 

projects. 

While the District will be looking for methods to further address this surplus-at-time-ofuse offsetting requirement (see last paragraph of section IV.A of this report), none of 

the methods can side-step the basic requirement that the District require, on a programwide basis, sufficient surplus-at-time-of-use credits to offset all federal major project 

increases. This requirement will result in significantly increased surplus-at-time-of-use 

offsets in the coming years after adoption of this rule. 

In conclusion, no NSR rule requirement has been relaxed with these modifications, so 

obviously no SB 288-prohibitted relaxation is taking place. And, as explained above, 

the impacts relative to offsetting are expected to be much more significant, with more 

offsets being immediately required, and more surplus-at-time-of-use offsets expected to 

be required in the future. Therefore, these rule revisions are more stringent than the 

December 30, 2002 version of our NSR rule and are not prohibited by SB 288. 

V. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

District staff conducted a scoping meeting on April 23, 2008, in which the preliminary 

staff report was presented for discussion. District staff requested public participation 

and input regarding legal and technical concerns for inclusion in the continued rule 

development process. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 11 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

District Staff then conducted a workshop on July 29, 2008 to present, discuss and 

take additional comments on the proposed rulemaking and the draft rule. 

Comments received from the public, affected sources, and EPA on the July 29 

proposals are incorporated into the draft rules as appropriate, and full responses are 

seen in the attached Appendix B. 

Comments received from the public, affected sources, and EPA on the October 16, 

2008 receive and file proposals are incorporated into the draft rules as appropriate, 

and full responses are seen in the attached Appendix A. The anticipated adoption 

date for amendments to Rules 2201 and 2530 is December 18, 2008. 

VI. COST EFFECTIVENESS AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to State law, the District is required to analyze the cost effectiveness of any 

proposed rule amendment that implement Best Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT). The draft amendments do not add BARCT requirements and therefore are 

not subject to the cost effectiveness analysis mandate. 

Additionally, state law requires the District to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any 

proposed rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an 

emission limitation. The draft amendments will have neither effect, and is therefore not 

subject to the socioeconomic analysis mandate. 

VII. RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 

Pursuant to CH&SC Section 40727.2 (g) a rule consistency analysis of the draft rule is 

not required. The draft rule does not strengthen emission limits or impose more 

stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. 

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has investigated the 

possible environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. This rule contains 

requirements that are meant to mitigate air quality impacts from new and expanding 

sources of air pollution, and, while no portions of the rule have been made less 

stringent than prior rules, certain provisions having to do with offsetting have been 

made more stringent and are therefore more protective of air quality. Therefore these 

revisions can be assumed to have no negative environmental impacts relative to air 

quality. In addition, the rule contains no direct requirements that can be expected to 

have any quantifiable or anticipated impact on other environmental concerns. Finally, 

specific projects that are subject to this rule must by definition receive discretionary 

permits from the District, at which time project-specific CEQA analyses must be 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page 12 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

performed. Therefore, based on these facts, and a lack of evidence to the contrary, 

District staff have preliminary concluded that the proposed amendments will not have 

any significant adverse effect on the environment. Staff recommends a Notice of 

Exemption be filled under the provisions of Public Resource Code 15061(b)(3) for this 

rule revision. 

Appendix A – Comments and Responses (October 16, 2008 version) 

Appendix B – Comments and Responses (June 30, 2008 and July 31, 2008 versions) 
APPENDIX A 

Comments and Responses regarding the following rules: 

 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) 

October 16, 2008 version 

 and 

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

October 16, 2008 version 

 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page A-2 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR 

RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND 

RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT)

EPA Region IX Staff Comments: 

None received. 

ARB Staff Comments: 

None received. 

Stakeholders Submitting Written Comments: 

J.R. Simplot 

1. Comment: Simplot Manufacturing Facilities are part of the Chemical Industrial 

Process Category. Emissions from the Chemical Industrial Process Category 

contribute approximately one half of one percent of the Valley's VOC emissions and 

approximately three hundredths of a percent of the oxides of nitrogen emissions. As 

a contributor to the source category, Simplot's portion would be less than the 

category as a whole. Since the major source definitions apply to all stationary 

sources, projects resulting in small increases in emissions would trigger expensive 

offsets and control technology. Because of this, Simplot would incur a 

disproportionate cost to solve the ozone attainment issue when considering the 

minute contribution to the problem. 

The high cost of permitting will put Simplot at an economic disadvantage when 

compared to the costs of permitting that competitors in other locations incur. 

Because of the small contribution to the emissions in the Valley, additional controls 

will not result in a noticeable improvement which is another reason the costs to be 

incurred by the chemical industrial facilities are exorbitant. 

Because mobile sources are contributing a much larger portion, Simplot 

recommends that the Valley investigate, and impose as appropriate, additional 

controls on mobile sources that will result in much larger reductions in emissions. It 

would be prudent to identify a larger major source threshold for those source 

categories, such as, the Chemical Industry Process Category, that contribute very 

little to the problem. (JRS) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page A-3 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

Response: As outlined in the staff report, this rulemaking addresses required 

changes to our permitting program necessary to implement federal law related to 

our extreme nonattainment ozone designation. While we appreciate the comment, 

there really is no option other than to implement these proposed changes. 

Regarding mobile source emissions, we agree that reductions in such emissions are 

critically important to achieving healthy air in the San Joaquin Valley. In fact, 

significant effort has been placed on achieving those reductions. The state has 

jurisdiction over mobile sources, and District authority to regulate emissions from 

vehicles is extremely limited. However, the District is addressing a significant 

proportion of emissions generated from mobile sources by providing incentive 

funding to reduce emissions. Additional measures to reduce the impact of 

emissions from vehicles are outlined in the District’s Ozone Attainment Plan, and 

include addressing the vehicle miles traveled through an Employer Trip Reduction 

measure, among others, but we continue to rely on the state and federal 

governments to do their part in reduction mobile emissions in the San Joaquin 

Valley.

2. Comment: Section 3 Definitions, pages 2201-1 and 2201-12. There appears to be a 

typographical error in the numbering system beginning with the definition of Routine 

Replacement. It continues onto page 12 making the application of the definition of 

SB 288 Major Modification unclear.

Response: The numbering system is correct. The “Major Modification” definition, 

formerly 3.23, was renamed to “SB288 Major Modification” and moved to a new 

location under section 3.34. Routine Replacement was renumbered to 3.33, 

formerly numbered 3.34. Although it may be difficult to see, the strikeout overlaps 

the number 4. 
APPENDIX B 

Comments and Responses regarding the following rules: 

 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) 

June 30, 2008 version 

 and 

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

July 29, 2008 version 

 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-2 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES FOR 

RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND 

RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT)

EPA Region IX Staff Comments: 

1. Comment: (Regarding section 3.7.1.4) Given the courts ruling on the special 

treatment of “clean units” under the NSR reform regulations, I don’t think this 

provision is still acceptable. 

Response: We believe the commenter connected this “Clean Emissions Unit” term 

with the federal NSR reforms, and determinations of “major modifications”. 

However, this section is NOT used in determining whether a project constitutes a 

federal major modification. This section actually predates the federal NSR reforms 

of 2002, and is used only in determining the quantity of offsets required by our rule. 

The District fully acknowledges that this rule’s offsetting requirements do not match 

up on a one-to-one basis with the federal offsetting requirements, and has added, 

with EPA’s concurrence, the Offset Equivalency Demonstration of section 7 of this 

rule to demonstrate that our offsetting requirements are superior to the federal 

requirements, or if demonstrated not equivalent, to require surplus offsets at that 

time. EPA has approved section 7 of the rule as sufficient for these demonstration 

purposes, and therefore there is no need to address this comment further. 

2. Comment: (Regarding section 3.17.1) Must add CFR reference to define 

Regulated NSR pollutant, or you can add the term’s definition to the rule.

Response: We agree, and propose to reword as follows: 

Less-Than-Significant Emissions Increase Exclusion: An emissions increase for 

the project, or a net emissions increase for the project (as determined pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.165 (a)(2)(ii)(B) through (D), and (F)), that is not significant for a given 

regulated NSR pollutant, as defined in 40 CFR 51.165, is not a federal major 

modification for that pollutant.

3. Comment: (Regarding 3.28) Should be reworded to delete reference to the 

California Code of Regulations, as the test method is not part of the referenced 

section, and the CCR is not in the SIP, which may create a SIP reference problem.

Response: We agree (and in fact found the reference as currently worded to be an 

erroneous reference), and propose to reword as recommended by EPA, but add a 

reference to the definition of PM-10 in our “Definitions” rule, Rule 1020: 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-3 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

PM10: particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to a 

nominal ten microns, as defined in Rule 1020, Definitions as measured by an 

applicable reference test method or methods found in Article 2, Subchapter 6, Title 

17, California Code of Regulations (commencing with Section 94100).

4. Comment: (Regarding section 3.34.1) This section should be limited to the specific 

emission unit, not the entire Stationary Source, or else it can not be routine. 

Response: We agree, and although we have never allowed sources to ”net out” of 

BACT requirements, we propose to reword the section as follows to more fully 

reflect the District’s interpretation and implementation of this section: 

There is no increase in permitted emissions from the Stationary Source

replacement unit(s). 

5. Comment: (Regarding section 4.6.3, offset exemption) What about equipment 

registered under your new registration rule? Any NSR exemption should be 

provided here, not in rule 2250.

Response: Although we believe that exemption from all permitting requirements for 

equipment registered under the District’s PEER program is adequately covered in 

the permitting exemption in Rule 2020, we also believe that adding the following 

language provides consistency with the similar exemptions for portable equipment 

and might avoid confusion in the future: 

Portable equipment which is registered as such in accordance with the 

provisions of Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration) or the Statewide 

Portable Equipment Registration Program (California Code of Regulation Title 

13, Article 5, Sections 2450-2465), or equipment registered in accordance with 

the provisions of Rule 2250 (Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration). 

6. Comment: (Regarding section 4.8.1) 1.5 is the offset ratio required for an extreme 

area, regardless of distance. In addition, due to the large size of the District, a 

distance offset ratio should also apply to ensure “equivalent environmental benefit.” 

My historical understanding is that rather than make a case by case determination 

for each project, the distance ratio was adopted to address this issue. 

Response: We are unaware of any federal regulatory requirement to establish a 

difference in definition between the offset ratios required by federal extreme area 

requirements and our own, and so propose to continue to call ours “Distance Offset 

Ratios.” In addition, the ratio for NOx and VOC meets the federal regulatory 

requirement of a minimum of 1.5-to-1, so no change is proposed due to this 

comment. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-4 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

7. Comment: (Regarding section 4.8.2) I don’t think we can approve this into the SIP 

(based solely on a “demonstration to the satisfaction of the EPA”). Not only would a 

showing have to be made, but EPA would need to have a FR notice and take 

comments, in the same manner as if you proposed the lower threshold in this rule. 

Response: We concur we must have EPA’s approval, which occurs only after 

notice in the federal register and proper public processes are completed. After 

additional discussion with EPA, we agreed to add the following underlined phrase 

The requirements of section 4.8.1 shall not apply if the District demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the federal Environmental Protection Agency that all major sources 

of NOx and VOC in the District are equipped with federal BACT, as defined in CAA 

Section 169(3). After EPA approval of such a demonstration, the standard 

distance offset ratios listed in Table 4-2 shall apply for new major sources and 

federal major modifications, except that where the original location of the offsets is 

at the same stationary source as the new or modified emissions unit, the distance 

offset ratio shall be 1.2. 

ARB Staff Comments: 

None received. 

Internal District Staff Comments: 

8. Comment: Permit Services staff suggests that the definition of "major modification" 

in Rule 2201 sec 3.23 (essentially determined by the difference between the post 

project potential to emit and the actual emissions) remain as is, i.e. leave the 

threshold at 50,000 lb/year for NOx and VOC. There are a few requirements for 

"major modifications" in the Rule as follows, and an examination of these 

requirements reveals the positive impacts of this suggestion: 

4.1.3 BACT required for major modifications 

4.13.1 Restricts the use of some ERCs for "major modifications" 

5.4.1 Public notice for major modifications 

The most significant of these requirements is the BACT requirement for major 

modifications. We have had a few projects where the applicant is either making an 

innocuous change, such as changing the limestone injection rate on a SO2 CEM 

equipped coal-fired boiler, or a more significant change, like adding an SO2

scrubber to three existing sour gas fired steam generators, where BACT was 

required only because the project constituted a major modification. There was no 

increase in emissions of any kind, on an actual or potential basis, and in fact there 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-5 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

were significant decreases in SOx emissions in the latter case, and yet BACT was 

triggered because the project was a major modification. 

Applications for such projects have been cancelled because the units are not 

equipped with current BACT for NOx or some other pollutant. When these projects 

are cancelled, the District loses the opportunity to benefit from the reduced 

emissions (SOx in these cases) that the projects would have generated and 

sources lose the ability to make changes that make operational changes that have 

a no real impact on emissions. 

By setting the major modification threshold to 0, almost all NSR applications (except 

for units that were fully offset for all pollutants) will require BACT. Given that this 

definition is an artifact of SB288 (which only requires that we not relax any 

requirements due to NSR reform), we don't believe that we should impose this type 

of disincentive on more sources. Note that we are not proposing to relax this section 

relative to the December 2002 version – we are not changing it at all. 

If we implement this suggestion, we'll need to revise the definition of "Federal Major 

Modification" in section 3.17 (essentially the difference between the projected actual 

emissions an the actual emissions) to de-link it from the definition of "Major 

Modification", and update the above-referenced sections so that “Federal Major 

Modifications” trigger BACT. 

For existing units, in most cases, the major modification calculation is more 

stringent than the Federal major modification calculation The major modification 

calculation for a group of modified emission units (without an increase in capacity) 

can easily result in a significant emission increase whereas the Federal major 

modification calculation for the same group of modified emission units typically 

results in no emission increase. For new emission units the Federal major 

modification calculation is more stringent than the major modification calculation 

due to the lower significance thresholds for Federal major modifications. 

Response: We agree that we do not want to disincentivize changes that reduce 

actual emissions of air contaminants. However, we need to ensure that all federal 

requirements are met for extreme areas, so to implement this suggestion, we also 

agree we must completely delink the definitions of major modification and federal 

major modification, and we have done so with the currently proposed rule. In fact, 

we have also renamed the pre-December 31, 2002 version of “Major Modification” 

as “SB 288 Major Modification” to eliminate any confusion with the current federal 

definition of major modification. 

The definition of major source remains as proposed. Please note that even though 

the definition of major source (i.e. 20,000 lb/year for NOx and VOC) is more 

stringent than the definition that existed on December 19, 2002 (i.e. 50,000 lb/year 

for NOx and VOC), we do not believe that making this change will impose any new 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-6 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

requirements on sources that undergo an “SB288 major modification”. Such an “SB 

288 major modification” would trigger Federal New Source Review requirements, 

as they existed on December 19, 2002 , due solely to the magnitude of the 

calculated emission increase (i.e. 50,000 lb/year for NOx and VOC). 

For example, a project with a “SB 288 major modification” emission increase of 

51,000 lb/year of NOx would be considered a “SB 288 major modification” whether 

it occurred at an existing minor source (19,000 ton/year NOx ) or an existing major 

source. 

These definitions are consistent with or more stringent than the definitions of “Major 

Source” and “Major Modification” that existed in our December 19, 2002 version of 

this rule, therefore SB 288 is not violated. 

We then reviewed each section of our rule that referenced major modifications to 

ensure that federal major modifications trigger the appropriate requirements. 

Specifically, in addition to the above changes, we updated the following: 

• Section 3.17, “Federal Major Modification” now directly references the federal 

definition of “Major Modification”. We kept language referencing two 

exclusions for ease of reference, but the essential definitions and language 

will come from 40 CFR 51.165. 

• Section 4.1.3 was modified to specifically require BACT for any SB 288 major 

modification or federal major modification. 

• Section 4.13.1 was clarified to apply the same offsetting limitations to both 

federal and SB 288 major modifications. 

• Sections 5.4.1, 5.5.3, and 5.5.5, regarding public noticing requirements was 

clarified to apply to both federal and SB 288 major modifications. 

Stakeholders Submitting Written Comments: 

Earthjustice (EJ) 

Greenberg Glusker LLP (GG) 

Aera Energy LLC (AERA) 

Chevron North America Explorations and Production (CNAEP) 

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINES 

9. Comment: At the outset it is important to note that these changes to Rule 2201 are 

not only needed to reflect the District’s request to reclassify the Valley as an 

extreme ozone nonattainment area under the 8-hour standard, but also the Valley’s 

2004 reclassification to extreme nonattainment under the 1-hour standard. See 74 

Fed. Reg. 20550, 20552 (April 16, 2004). While EPA attempted to avoid further 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-7 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

implementation of these new source review requirements by revoking the 1-hour 

standard, those attempts were rejected by the court in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt 

Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2006). As the District itself recognizes, 

the more stringent federal requirements associated with a reclassification become 

effective immediately upon reclassification through the federal provisions codified in 

Appendix S of 40 C.F.R. part 51. See Draft Staff Report at 6; see also 40 C.F.R. § 

52.24(k). The result is that since -- the effective date of the 1-hour reclassification -- 

the major source threshold for the Valley for VOC and NOx has been 10 tons per 

year and any increase in these emissions at a major source is subject to federal new 

source review requirements. In addition, the offset ratio for these new and modified 

sources has been 1.5 to 1 since that date. (EJ)

Response: Earthjustice is incorrect in saying that the “extreme” NSR requirements 

currently apply in the San Joaquin Valley. At the time that the District was 

reclassified as extreme nonattainment under the 1-hour standard, Appendix S did 

not include requirements for extreme non-attainment areas. Implementing Appendix 

S at that time would have resulted in applying 100-ton major source thresholds to 

facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, resulting in a significant relaxation in NSR 

requirements. Therefore we did not implement Appendix S at that time. 

Appendix S has subsequently been updated to implement the extreme 

nonattainment area requirements, but was clearly intended to apply to the newer 8-

hour ozone standard. In fact, the 1-hour ozone standard did not even exist at the 

time Appendix S was updated to contain requirements for extreme areas under the 

8-hour standard. The 1-hour standard had been revoked by EPA, and not yet 

reinstated by the court. The result is that no one had an opportunity to take part in a 

public process that could then properly result in “extreme” requirements applying to 

sources in 1-hour areas. No one was able to provide comments regarding such a 

situation, because EPA did not propose the rules to apply in such a way. 

Therefore, applying 8-hour Appendix S requirements applicable to “extreme” areas 

to sources in an area that is not yet reclassified as “extreme” under the 8-hour 

standard would be applying regulations without proper due process, and is clearly 

inappropriate. 

Finally, it’s important to note that these rule modifications will implement the 1-hour 

extreme requirements as well as the 8-hour extreme requirements because they 

apply the same underlying FCAA requirements. Therefore the issue is moot. We 

will either have this rule in effect at the time EPA reclassifies us as “extreme” 

nonattainment under the 8-hour standard, or we will implement Appendix S, thus 

directly implementing the appropriate federal requirements. 

10. Comment: This same issue regarding the application of Appendix S also arises 

under the PM2.5 NAAQS. As of July 15 of this year, all new source review permits 

issued in the Valley must also comply with the Appendix S thresholds for PM2.5. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-8 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

See 73 Fed. Reg. 28321, 28342 (May 16, 2008). PM10 can no longer be used as a 

surrogate for analyzing and controlling PM2.5. Id. In order to avoid the confusion 

that obviously has been created around ozone, we recommend that the District take 

this opportunity to amend Rule 2201 to reflect these newly applicable PM2.5 

thresholds as well. (EJ) 

Response: We agree that the Appendix S requirements applicable to PM 2.5 

nonattainment areas currently apply in the San Joaquin Valley, and we are 

implementing those requirements accordingly. However, there is no immediate 

necessity to revise our rules – the deadline for incorporating the PM 2.5 

requirements into our own NSR rule is still nearly three years away. There are many 

issues yet to be answered about PM 2.5 NSR requirement implementation and we 

intend to wait for some answers before proceeding with rule revisions. 

11. Comment: Section 2 provides that the Rule is applicable to any application that is 

incomplete as of the effective date of the Rule. Section 2 should be revised to 

provide that it is applicable to incomplete applications to the extent the Administrator 

has provided timely notice of its incompleteness. 

Section 5.1 requires the Administrator to notify the applicant within 30 days of 

receipt of the application that the application is complete. If the Administrator fails to 

so notify the applicant within the 30 days, it is unclear whether the application is 

deemed complete. Applicants should not be subject to greater permit requirements 

because of the Administrator's failure to properly notify the applicants and provide 

them the opportunity to complete the application before the more stringent 

requirements go into effect. Section 5.1 should also be amended to deem an 

application complete if the Administrator fails to notify the applicant within thirty (30) 

days that the application is incomplete. (GG) 

Response: According to California Government Code Section 65943, the District is 

required to determine if an application is complete or incomplete within 30 days. 

Furthermore, if the District does not respond within 30 days after receiving an 

application, California Government Code Section 65943(b) states “the application 

shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter”. This will start the 180 day 

clock for the District to continue with its evaluation to issue the permit or authority to 

construct that must comply with local, state and federal requirements. Therefore, no 

change is necessary. 

It is important to note here that determining an applications completeness under the 

California Government Code does not necessarily affect the applicability of federal 

rules and regulations. Federal rules are often specifically written to apply to pending 

applications, regardless of whether they are considered complete. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-9 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

BACT 

12. Comment: Definition of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) (Section 3.9).

The federal regulations define the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) as the 

most stringent “rate of emissions.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.165(a)(1)(xiii). Section 3.9, by 

contrast, defines BACT as the most stringent emission limitation “or control 

technique.” As you are well aware, technologies are capable of a range of control 

efficiencies. The District therefore should either delete the clause “or control 

technique” or clarify that it is not enough simply to apply the same control 

technology without also meeting the most stringent limit associated with that 

technique or technology. 

We note further that the definition in section 3.9 also differs from the federal 

definition of LAER by using category “and” class in section 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 instead 

of category “or” class as used in 40 C.F.R. § 51.165(a)(1)(xiii). We believe the use of 

“or” directs a broader consideration of similar sources than is implied by the District 

definition. Again we recommend that the District either change this language or 

clarify that the intent of this language is the same as that in the federal regulations. 

(EJ) 

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to reaffirm that the intent of District rule 

language implementing BACT requirements, and it’s implementation by District staff, 

is completely consistent with, or more stringent than, the federal regulations 

regarding LAER and BACT. 

OFFSET RATIO 

13. Comment: Offset Threshold (Section 4.7.2.1). It is time for the District to abandon 

this provision limiting the number of offsets required for new major sources. Federal 

law requires that all emissions from major sources or major modifications be fully 

offset at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. The District’s approach will make it increasingly difficult 

to demonstrate equivalency with the federal offset requirements. To avoid having to 

adopt the federal program, it would be better to drop this threshold requirement in 

Rule 2201 and require sources to fully offset their emissions increases. (EJ) 

Response: We agree that this rule will make it increasingly difficult to demonstrate 

equivalency with federal offsetting requirements. We will be proposing rulemaking 

in the near future to modify our NSR rules, which modifications we currently expect 

will do one of the following: 

• eliminate the equivalency demonstration and require offsetting requirements 

consistent with federal requirements, 

• construct a market-based declining-cap emissions trading system that can be 

demonstrated to be equivalent to federal requirements, or 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-10 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

• design an emissions reduction generation program operated by the District 

and funded by fees assessed to major sources of air pollution in the San 

Joaquin Valley. Surplus reductions generated under such a program would 

then be considered in the equivalency system. 

Unfortunately, time constraints created by the deadline to implement the “extreme” 

8-hour requirements do not allow a complete exploration of these options as a part 

of this current rule revision process. Instead, we expect to start the scoping process 

for these rules in late 2008 or early 2009. 

OFFSET EQUIVALENCY DEMONSTRATION 

14. Comment: We are concerned that the District has not been applying these 

requirements. In particular, we note that the District’s discussion of the annual offset 

equivalency demonstration erroneously refers in the future conditional tense to the 

lower thresholds that “would be proposed under an 8-hour extreme rule . . . .” Draft 

Staff Report at 7. These lower thresholds and offset ratios already apply to sources 

in the Valley. To the extent the District’s annual equivalency demonstrations have 

not been taking these more stringent federal requirements into account since 2004, 

the District is out of compliance with its own rule and must reanalyze the 

equivalency of the District rule to the federal program. This may mean that additional 

offsets will need to be retired in order to “balance the books” or that additional 

offsets or emission reductions will be required from sources. While we recognize the 

hardship that compliance may require, we also recognize that the air pollution 

problems in the Valley will not be addressed if emissions are allowed to grow without 

the required offsets. (EJ) 

Response: The lower thresholds and offset ratios do not yet apply. Please see the 

response to comment 9. 

15. Comment: Offset Equivalency Demonstration (Section 7.1.1). In order to avoid 

internal inconsistency within the rule and potential conflict with SB 288, section 7.1.1 

should be revised to read “in 40 CFR 51.165 in effect on December 19, 2002.” As 

we have explained before, without this date, the number of offsets required by the 

federal program used in the comparison will be smaller due to new flexibilities added 

to the federal program since December 19, 2002. The result is that the District will 

be allowed to reduce the number of offsets required to demonstrate equivalency. 

Such a relaxation of the District’s offset requirement through this incorporation of 

EPA’s NSR relaxations is the very type of backsliding that SB 288 intended to 

prevent. (EJ) 

Response: As we have stated in the past, the federal EPA requires that we 

demonstrate equivalency with current federal offsetting requirements, not those in 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-11 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

effect on December 19, 2002. Earthjustice’s comment would result in clear 

noncompliance with federal law. 

In addition, no fewer offsets are required by our current rule than the rule in effect on 

December 30, 2002. Similarly, no fewer offsets will be required by this new 

proposed revised rule. To argue that this language is a relaxation prohibited by SB 

288 is just not correct. 

Finally, if Earthjustice’s argument is carried to its logical conclusion, we would also 

certainly be asked by other stakeholders to use the major project thresholds in place 

on December 30, 2002, as the basis for judging equivalency. So, such an 

interpretation would actually result in a relaxation when compared to the proposed 

requirements, certainly not a consequence that Earthjustice anticipates. 

OFFSET EXEMPTIONS 

16. Comment: Section 4.6.9 should be revised to clarify that agricultural sources are 

exempt from emission offset requirements until the District allows agricultural 

sources to obtain credit for emission reductions. The District has taken actions that 

will have the effect of reducing the federal major source threshold for ozone 

precursors from 25 tons to 10 tons, which may potentially affect new or expanding 

dairies. Some may incorrectly interpret the provision as requiring the District to 

ignore state law and require major agricultural sources to obtain offsets without any 

opportunity to obtain credit for emission reductions. 

Existing section 4.6.9 currently provides the following exemption: 

Agricultural sources, to the extent provided by California Health & Safety Code, 

section 42301.18(c), except that nothing in this section shall circumvent the 

requirements of section 42301.16(a). 

Section 42301.18(c) prohibits any district from requiring agricultural sources to 

obtain offsets until agricultural source reductions meets the criteria for creditability. 

Pursuant to this statute, the District does not have the requisite state authority to 

require emission offsets unless the offsets can be credited. Thus far, the District has 

not allowed the creditability of any dairy source emission, on an industry-wide basis, 

as such reductions fail, according to the District, to meet District and federal criteria 

for "real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable" emission reductions. Indeed, the 

District and CAPCOA have maintained that EPA must approve the protocol for 

establishing the creditability of dairy or other agricultural emissions before they can 

be applied at the district level. Under State law, until such emissions are creditable, 

the District cannot require them. CAL.HEALTH& SAFETY CODE 42301.18(c). 

Importantly, section 42301.18(c) applies to all agricultural sources, not just 

agricultural sources that are not federal major sources. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-12 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

Section 42301.16(a) only requires that agricultural sources obtain permits 

"consistent with federal requirements" and not necessarily in compliance with 

federal requirements. The Clean Air Act generally requires certain emission offsets 

from new or expanding federal major sources. 

... 

Until the District allows sources to obtain credit for and bank emission reductions, 

the District cannot require dairies to obtain emission reduction credits to construct or 

modify major sources. The existing exemption at section 4.6.9 should be more 

plainly stated in order to avoid confusion and potential litigation...(GG) 

Response: The District appreciates the opportunity to further clarify this very 

important issue. To state it as clearly as possible, the offset exemption of section 

4.6.9 is NOT available to agricultural sources which are major sources of air 

pollution. Only non-major sources are provided any exemption from offsetting 

requirements by this section. 

This is not new language, nor is it new interpretation. There is no confusion in the 

legislation, the legislative history, or in CAPCOA’s white paper on SB 700 

implementation. The purpose of the language of section 42301.16(a) is to 

specifically require offsets of major sources of air contaminants, as this was 

specifically necessary to fulfill the mandates of the federal SIP call that the state was 

under at the time. Without this language specifically requiring offsets of major 

agricultural sources, the law would not have met EPA’s requirement that we subject 

major California agricultural sources to federal permitting requirements, and EPA 

would not have been able to stop the SIP call and the impending sanctions. 

Therefore the suggested change can not be made. 

MISCELLANEOUS CALCULATION METHODOLOGIES 

17. Comment: The District should consider the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District's approach to major modifications in another district designated as extreme. 

There, the threshold is 1 lb. per day threshold for BACT with a 0.5 lb per day, 30 day 

average, threshold for offsets. As proposed, some could argue that a single 

molecule increase in emissions arising from a modification could trigger Rule 2201 

requirements (reference section 3.23). (GG) 

Response: The District’s current policies that use similar methodology will be 

updated to correspond to the revisions in the rule.

18. Comment: The Staff Report comments on the impact of the change in attainment 

status and major source definition in Rule 2201 on permitting requirements for 

existing dairies. (Staff Report, p.5, reference Rule 2201 and Rule 2020, Section 

6.20). With the change in the definition of major source threshold, the half a major 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-13 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

source exemption required by California Health & Safety Code 42301.16 will be 

dropped from 12.5 tons to 5 tons. 

We request that the District consider a revision to Rule 2020 which would maintain 

the current exemption at 12.5 tons, at least until such time as the existing thresholds 

for Rule 4570 are decreased. Section 42301.16 only requires permits for major 

agricultural sources, but exempts those below the half a major source threshold. We 

understand that the District intends to drop the threshold for Rule 4570 so that the 

same dairies will be subject to the same rule. Requiring the dairies to obtain a 

permit sooner will only result in substantial paperwork and expense without any 

meaningful impact on air quality. (GG)

Response: California Health and Safety Code 42301.16 requires agricultural 

facilities with emissions over one-half the major source thresholds to obtain permits. 

The District cannot therefore implement commenter’s suggestion. 

19. Comment: We also note that the language of section 42301.16(3)(b) differs from 

the language of section 40724.6(c) in terms of how the major source threshold 

should be calculated. Section 42301.16 (3)(b) simply refers to major source 

threshold which means only non-fugitive emissions are counted. Whereas 

49724.6(c) expressly requires that fugitive emissions are included in the 

calculations. Despite past practices, the District should adhere to the statutory 

language. (GG) 

Response: The District appreciates the opportunity to reiterate that, for the 

purposes of implementing CH&SC sections 40724.6(c) and 42301.16(c), all 

emissions, except for fugitive dust, must be included in calculations to determine 

district permitting requirements based on one-half of the major source thresholds. 

The statutory language of these sections is consistent, whether read separately or in 

the interrelated nature in which they were intended to be read, and District’s 

implementation adheres to this statutory language. 

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 

20. Comment: The District may wish to consider how requiring offsets from dairies 

without allowing credit may have an impact on the environment. Dairy operators who 

would otherwise modernize, improve and expand, may include additional or more 

efficient mitigation measures which may exceed what is currently in place or 

required. As dairy operators improve and update their operations, they generally 

want to include the most efficient, sanitary and environmentally sound and feasible 

measures for their operations. While such improvements may include the capacity 

for additional cows, they may also result in a net decrease in emissions due to lower 

actual use (i.e. below capacity) or increased efficiency in reducing emissions. 

However, efficiencies in one unit of the dairy may not be creditable to offset the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-14 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

potential increases elsewhere. To the extent the District requires emission offsets 

without allowing credit for reductions, dairy operators will be disincentivized from 

improving and modernizing their operations, potentially resulting in greater 

emissions. 

Similarly, by requiring the purchase of offsets - without the availability of credit for 

reductions - the District may be creating a significant economic impediment that will 

prevent large dairies from modernizing their operations and taking on herds from 

less efficient operations potentially resulting in more emissions to the basin. 

Modifications at dairies are often undertaken or may be undertaken in the future to 

add additional capacity for herds that have been relocated from another dairy, 

sometimes owned or acquired by the expanding dairy. The modifications for the 

major source expanding dairy are likely to have more efficient controls than the dairy 

from which the herd originated, particularly if the herd is moved from a less 

regulated dairy (i.e. below 1000 milking cows and not subject to Rule 4570). The 

same result would be true for dairies (including those not subject to Rule 4570) that 

might otherwise shutdown in order to move their herd to another more modern and 

larger operation with greater emission controls. (GG) 

Response: We are somewhat confused by this comment, as CEQA does generally 

allow the consideration of reductions generated by enforceable changes in 

operations. Regardless, for CEQA purposes, the District and the land-use agencies 

in the San Joaquin Valley have historically and appropriately considered emission 

offsetting that is consistent with the requirements of the District’s NSR rule to be 

considered adequate and feasible mitigation of a permitted source’s emissions. In 

other words, CEQA air impacts issues are generally thought to be satisfied by the 

permitting and offsetting requirements NSR, and therefore NSR offsetting 

requirements have been of significant benefit to sources of air pollution in the San 

Joaquin Valley in a CEQA context. Dairies have run into CEQA issues precisely 

because they have been exempt from NSR’s offsetting requirements. 

We expect that those dairies that are subject to the District’s NSR offsetting 

requirements because of these proposed revisions will find that CEQA is somewhat 

easier to negotiate because of it. 

In addition, we will continue to work diligently towards a dairy emissions reduction 

banking protocol over the next several months, which protocol will be designed to 

recognize and allow banking of dairy emissions reductions that meet the specific 

ERC banking criteria. We look forward to the commenter’s support as we proceed 

with that effort. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-15 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

SECTION 3.18 (FUGITIVE EMISSIONS) 

21. Comment: In response to a request made at the July 29, 2008 workshop, we 

understand that the District will revise the definition of 'Fugitive Emissions' in Section 

3.18 of the proposed rule by making it clear that such emissions are only included in 

calculations for determining a Major Modification or Federal Major Modification for 

those source categories specifically identified in the major source definition of 40 

CFR Part 70.2. 

Accordingly, we recommend revising Section 3.1 8 of the proposed rule as follows: 

3.18 Fugitive Emissions: emissions that could not reasonably pass through a vent, 

chimney, stack, or other functionally equivalent opening. Emissions that are 

not vented through a stack but can reasonably be captured and vented 

through a stack are not considered Fugitive. Fugitive emissions shall be 

included in all calculations, except as provided in Section 3.24, and except for 

calculations performed in accordance with Section 3.17 and 3.23 for sources 

not included in the list of source categories identified in the major source 

definition of 40 CFR Part 70.2. (CNAEP) 

Response: During the July workshop we stated that we would investigate and 

clarify the applicability of fugitive emissions in Major Modification calculations. Our 

investigations since that date have cleared up some of the potential confusion that 

may have arisen from past drafts of these revised rules. 

First, let me clarify our current and long-standing practice: we do not include fugitive 

emissions when determining whether a source is a major source or a project is a 

major modification (of course, we do count fugitives if the source is one of the 

“listed” source-types, and for the purposes of determining whether a source is a 

major air toxics source). In the current version of Rule 2201, this is captured in the 

definitions of “Major Source” and “Fugitive Emissions” (which points to the major 

modification definition). 

We do not intend to change this practice. However, the federal interpretation of 

whether one must include fugitive emissions for these purposes appears to be in 

some flux. At the time of the workshop, you’ll recall that we asked the EPA 

representative her opinion, but she was not aware of the status of EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking on this subject. 

Therefore, rather than rewrite the definition of “Fugitive Emissions” as you suggest, 

we are changing the reference to point to the major source definition, and adding 

the phrase, “and as allowed in the applicable 40 CFR Part 51.165.” Both major 

modification definitions (3.17 and 3.34) point to versions of the 40 CFR Part 51.165, 

and Part 51.165 has, in the past, allowed the exclusion of fugitive emissions from 

major modification calculations. However, we do intend to follow EPA regulatory 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-16 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

guidance on this issue, and the reference to 51.165 allows us to do so moving into 

the future. 

In conclusion, we are taking this opportunity to confirm that, for the purposes of “SB 

288 major modification” and “federal major modification” applicability, we will 

continue our practice of excluding fugitive emissions from the calculations to the 

extent allowed by 40 CFR 51.165. 

SECTION 4.15.1 (ALTERNATIVE SITING) 

22. Comment: As noted at the July 29, 2008 workshop, the reduced NOx and VOC 

major modification thresholds will result in many more projects becoming subject to 

the Alternative Siting analysis provisions in Section 4.15.1 of the proposed rule. 

However, we are unclear as to how the affected projects will be evaluated under 

Section 4.15.1, and we are concerned that significant processing delays could be 

unnecessarily incurred. 

It has come to our attention that the South Coast Air Quality Management District's 

(SCAQMD) SIP-approved New Source Review Rule 1303 stipulates that Federal 

Clean Air Act (FCAA) based Alternative Siting analysis requirements are met for 

projects that satisfy certain requirements for the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA). Specifically, Part D (page 8) of Rule 1303 contains the caveat that 

compliance with the alternative siting provisions is satisfied through CEQA if any 

one of the following stipulations is met for a project: 

• The proposed project is exempt (statutory or categorical exemption) from CEQA, 

or 

• The proposed project qualifies for a negative declaration or mitigated negative 

declaration, or 

• The proposed project has been analyzed by an environmental impact report 

(EIR). 

We recommend that the above CEQA based exclusions should be applied in 

relation to projects that trigger the alternative siting analysis requirements of Rule 

2201. These provisions could be incorporated directly into Section 4.15.1 of the 

proposed rule, or promulgated through a District policy. (CNAEP)

Response: The District intends to draft policy that will implement similar 

methodology. 

STATIONARY SOURCE DEFINITION 

Comment: In the July 29, 2008 Draft Staff Report, the District responded to Aera's 

request to revise the definition of Stationary Source contained in Section 3.37 of 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Final Staff Report: Rules 2201 and 2530 December 18, 2008 

Page B-17 Final Staff Report 

 for Rules 2201 and 2530

Rule 2201 by stating that incorporating the request into Rule 2201 would not be 

allowed by Senate Bill 288 because it would represent backsliding of the New 

Source Review Rule. Aera believes the requested change is not prohibited by 

Senate Bill 288. It is paramount to note that the language in Senate Bill 288 does 

not disallow changes to requirements for BACT for any specific change, but rather to 

requirements for BACT for a stationary source. 

In certain situations under our proposed change to Section 3.37, BACT would no 

longer be triggered for the simple act of using a steam generator to steam a light oil 

formation where it previously was used to steam a heavy oil formation. Since heavy 

and light oil production would be one stationary source, BACT would no longer be 

triggered by section 4.1.1 of Rule 2201 as there is not a relocation from one 

stationary source to another. However, BACT would be triggered more often (for the 

same source) through a Major Modification (section 4.1.3 of Rule 2201) under the 

proposed combined definition of stationary source than with the current split of 

heavy and light oil production stationary sources. 

This is because all of the production equipment would be part of the same stationary 

source and any project to modify equipment would not be split into separate projects 

representing changes at separate stationary sources. (AERA) 

Response: Under SB288, specifically codified under CH&SC Section 42504 

(b)(2)(B), a district is not allowed to change its new source review rule that would 

allow exemption, relaxation, or reduce the obligation of a stationary source “any 

requirements for best available control”. As stated in your comment, the requested 

change will allow certain instances where BACT will be exempted, and ARB’s 

interpretive guidance on SB 288 clearly disallows changes to our NSR rule that relax 

a requirement to obtain BACT in any particular case. Therefore, the change in 

stationary source definition can not be made. 
San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUT10# CONTROL DISTRICT 

GOVERNING BOARD 

Leroy Omellas, Chair 

Supervisor, San Joaquin County 

Chris Viena, Vice Chair DATE: December 18,2008 

Councilmember. City of Ceres \ 

Tony Barba 

Supervisor, Kings County TO: SJVUAPD Governing Board 

Judith G. Case 

Supervisor. Fresno County FROM: Seyed Sad redin, Executive DirectorIAPCO 

Ronn Dominici Project Coordinator: David Warner 

Suoervisor, Madera Countv 

RE: 

Henry Jay Forman. Ph.D. 

Appointed by Governor 

Michael G. Nelson 

Supervisor. Merced County ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

William O'Brien 

Supervisor, Stanislaus County RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Henry T. Perea 

Counciimember, City of Fresno 1. Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

John 6. Telles, M.D. Stationary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally 

Appointed by Governor Enforceable Potential to Emit). 

Raymond A. Watson 

Supervisor, Kern County 2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution. 

J. Steven Worthley 

Supervisor, Tulare County 

Vacant 

, targe City 

Vacant 

Small City, Central Region 

Vacant 

Small City, Southern Region 

Seyed Sadredin 

Executive Director 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

BACKGROUND: 

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) is 

proposing to revise Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) to 

add permitting requirements based on our proposed "extreme" 

nonattainment ozone designation. 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) 

Northern Region Office Rule 2201's primary purpose is to provide a regulatory mechanism for 

4800 Enterprise Way 

Modesto, CA 95356.8718 allowing continued economic growth while minimizing the amount of 

(209)557-6400-FAX(209)557-6475 emission increases due to this growth. Rule 2201 applies to all new 

stationary sources and all modifications to existing stationary sources Central Region Office 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue that are subject to District permit requirements. 

Fresno. CA 93726-0244 

(559) 230.6000 FAX (559) 230.6061 

Southern Region Oftice 

2700 M Street Suite 275 

Bakersfield, CA 93301 -2373 

(661) 326-6900 FAX (661) 326-6985 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

The District's NSR program is designed to meet both the state and federal NSR 

requirements for nonattainment areas and applies to new and modified stationary 

sources that emit NOx, CO, VOC, SOX, PMIO and other pollutants, and that are subject 

to District permitting requirements pursuant to District Rule 201 0 (Permits Required). 

Key features of Rule 2201 include: 

Required elements for Authorities to Construct and Permits to Operate, and 

administrative requirements for the processing of NSR applications; 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT): mandates emission controls to 

minimize emission increases above de minimus values; 

Emission offsets: requires emissions above specified offset threshold levels to 

be mitigated with either concurrent reductions or past reductions which have 

been banked as emission reduction credits (ERC); 

Public notification: a 30 or 45 day notice period prior to issuance of an Authority 

to Construct (ATC) to garner comments on projects that result in emissions 

above specified levels. - - 

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) 

The primary purpose of Rule 2530 is to provide facilities whose actual emissions are 

consistently low to employ mechanisms to avoid Title V permitting requirements. Facilities 

that maintain sufficient records to demonstrate that actual emissions from the facility are 

less than 50 percent of all major source emissions thresholds are considered to have a 

"federally enforceable potential to emit" that is less than the District's Title V thresholds. 

DISCUSSION: 

Purpose of the Rule Revisions 

On April 30, 2007, the District adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 

federal 8-hour standard and requested the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin be 

redesignated to "extreme". The 2007 Ozone Plan was then submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board (ARB) to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 

November 17, 2007. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and implementing regulations 

require that 8-hour extreme nonattainment areas incorporate certain requirements into 

their NSR rules. The District is proposing amendments to Rule 2201 to change the 

major source and major modification thresholds and to make other changes to address 

these federal 8-hour ozone extreme nonattainment requirements. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEWRULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December f 8, 2008 

Also as a result of the District's 8-hour ozone extreme nonattainment status, the District 

must make changes to its Title V permitting program. Specifically, Rule 2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential to Emit) will also be amended to reflect the 8-hour extreme 

nonattainment designation's major source threshold requirements for the ozone 

precursors, NOx and VOC. 

If adopted by the Governing Board on December 18,2008, the proposed amendments 

will be effective upon EPA approval. Regardless of the effective date of the Rules, 

federal regulations will require that the federal NSR requirements be implemented 

through Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 as of the date that EPA approves the District's 

redesignation to "extreme" nonattainment. For more discussion of Appendix S and its 

requirements, please see the Final Draft Staff Report, Appendix B, dated December 18, 

2008. 

It is important to note that implementing the requirements contained in these rules will 

also implement the identical I-hour ozone "extreme" nonattainment NSR requirements. 

The I-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppb) had been revoked by EPA, and during the 

implementation of the more health-protective eight-hour standard, EPA stated that 

existing I-hour NSR requirements were no longer necessary, since there was no I-hour 

standard to base the requirements. But the Washington DC Circuit Court said EPA 

erred in relaxing the I-hour ozone NSR requirements and were still applicable, even if 

the basis for the I-hour ozone NAAQS was no longer in effect. Therefore these 

revisions are also being adopted to implement the I-hour ozone NSR "extreme" 

nonattainment requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2201 

The major source definition in Section 3.24 will be amended to change the major source 

emission thresholds in Table 3-4. In the table, the'~0x and VOC thresholds will each 

be changed from 50,000 pounds per year to 20,000 pounds per year. 

Amendments to the federal major modification definition in Section 3.17 will change the 

significance thresholds in Table 3-1. The significance thresholds will be changed from 

50,000 pounds per year to zero (0) pounds per year for both NOx and VOC. Section 

3.23 is renamed "SB 288 Major Modification" to capture the intent of maintaining this 

definition in its pre-SB 288 condition (see SB 288 discussion in section 1V.B of the 

attached staff report). Also, Section 3.17 will be more clearly tied to the federal 

requirements by referencing the appropriate federal regulations and law. In addition, 

the Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Section, 3.17.2, will be clarified, as PAL 

exclusions can not be applied to ozone precursors in extreme ozone nonattainment 

areas, per 40 CFR 51.165(f)(l)(ii). 

Section 4.8, the distance offsets ratio within 15 miles of the new or modified emissions 

unit's Stationary Source would be changed from 1.3 to 1.5 for major increases of NOx 

or VOC. Alternatively the second option to address the 8-hour extreme area federal 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

offset requirement would be to require all existing major sources to apply best available 

control technology, as defined in Section 169(3) of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. The 

District does not have such a BACT requirement in the state plan at this time. In 

addition, because SB 288 does not allow us to relax our current offsetting requirements 

(see Section IV.9 of the attached staff report), the 1.2 offsetting ratio would be very 

limited, to reductions supplied at the site of the increased emissions. Therefore, we are 

not pursuing this option at this time, although language is added to allow us to pursue it 

further at a future date. 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 

This Rule provides exemptions from Title V permitting based on actual emissions, and 

requires recordkeeping and reporting to maintain the exemptions. The recordkeeping 

and reporting exemption is updated for NOx and VOC from 5 tons per year to 2 tons per 

year (both of which are at 20% of the relevant major source thresholds). The reporting 

requirements in Section 5.5.2 will now apply at 2.5 tons per year (25% of the major 

source thresholds) for both NOx and VOC. The emission limitations of Section 6.1 .I 

would apply at 5 tons per year (50% of the new thresholds). The quantity of emissions 

in Sections 5.4.2 and 6.2 have been changed to correspond with 50% of the extreme . NOx and VOC threshold levels. 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis: 

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40728.5, the District is required 

to analyze the cost effectiveness of new rules that implement Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT). The proposed amendments do not add BARCT 

requirements and therefore are not subject to the cost effectiveness analysis mandate. 

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis: 

State law requires the District to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any proposed 

rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an emission 

limitation. The draft amendments will have neither effect, and is therefore not subject to 

the socioeconomic analysis mandate. 

Rule Consistency Analysis: 

Pursuant to CH&SC Section 40727.2 (g) a rule consistency analysis of the draft rule is 

not required. The draft rule does not strengthen emission limits or impose more 

stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. 

Environmental Impacts: 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, staff investigated the possible 

environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. Because this rule does not relax 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

any current NSR provisions, and possessing no evidence to the contrary, District staff 

have concluded that the proposed amendments will not have any significant adverse effect 

on the environment. Staff will prepare a Notice of Exemption under the provisions of 

Public Resource Code 15061 (b)(3) for this project. 

Rule Development Process: 

District staff conducted a scoping meeting on April 23, 2008, in which the preliminary staff 

report was presented for discussion. District staff requested public participation and input 

regarding legal and technical concerns for inclusion in the rule development process. 

District Staff then conducted a workshop on July 29, 2008 to present, discuss and take 

additional comments on the proposed rulemaking and the draft Rules. Comments 

received from the public, affected sources and the EPA on the July 29 proposals were 

incorporated into the draft Rules as appropriate. 

Finally, your board received and filed the draft rules at your October board meeting. The 

notice of the public adoption hearing for this rule project was published in a general . *circulation newspaper in each of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties, and mailed to 

affected sources and interested parties. The public notice solicited written comments to be 

submitted by mail, and identified the names and telephone numbers of the District staff 

who could answer questions and respond to comments. Comments received are 

addressed in the attached Final Staff Report. 

FISCAL IMPACT: 

District staff expects some increases in workload due to these Rule amendments. 

Approximately 350 additional air pollution sources will be required to obtain Title V permits, 

significantly increasing the number of Title V facilities in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Approximately 500 additional agricultural sources of air pollution will be required to obtain 

operating permits. The increased workload will include an early surge due to the initial 

permitting requirements, starting late in the current fiscal year, and these earliest efforts 

will be handled with existing and temporary staff. Additional ongoing permitting tasks will 

also be generated by these additional sources. Similarly, the Compliance Department 

workload will increase. Title V operating permits require substantial recordkeeping and 

reporting, and more frequent inspections. Additionally, newly permitted agricultural 

sources will require initial and ongoing inspections. The permitting and compliance 

workload increases will be streamlined to the extent possible, consistent with our 

continuous efforts to improve operating efficiency. Any additional staffing needs will be 

assessed as we implement the revised Rules, and will be addressed through staffing 

increases only after all possible streamlining has been implemented. Such staffing 

increases, if necessary, are unlikely to be fully identified at the time of the preparation of 

the District's 2009-10 Budget, and therefore will likely take the form of a mid-year budget 

adjustment. However, the additional costs to the District are expected to be largely 
SJVUA PCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEWAND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEWRULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

recovered by the District's existing fee regulations, through both hourly processing fees 

and annual permit to operate renewal fees charged to the recipients of these new 

permits. Therefore, no adjustment to the 2008-09 District Budget is being requested at 

this time. 

Attachments: 

Resolution for Amendments to Rule 2201 and 2530 (5 pages) 

Proposed Rule 2201 (39 pages) 

Proposed Rule 2530 (12 pages) 

Final Stat7 Report (32 pages) 
DATE: December 18, 2008 

TO: SJVUAPD Governing Board 

FROM: Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO 

Project Coordinator: David Warner 

RE: ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 

(NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY 

ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Adopt proposed amendments to Rule 2201 (New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential to Emit). 

2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution. 

BACKGROUND:

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) is 

proposing to revise Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) to 

add permitting requirements based on our proposed “extreme” 

nonattainment ozone designation. 

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) 

Rule 2201’s primary purpose is to provide a regulatory mechanism for 

allowing continued economic growth while minimizing the amount of 

emission increases due to this growth. Rule 2201 applies to all new 

stationary sources and all modifications to existing stationary sources 

that are subject to District permit requirements. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

2 

The District’s NSR program is designed to meet both the state and federal NSR 

requirements for nonattainment areas and applies to new and modified stationary 

sources that emit NOx, CO, VOC, SOx, PM10 and other pollutants, and that are subject 

to District permitting requirements pursuant to District Rule 2010 (Permits Required). 

Key features of Rule 2201 include: 

• Required elements for Authorities to Construct and Permits to Operate, and 

administrative requirements for the processing of NSR applications; 

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT): mandates emission controls to 

minimize emission increases above de minimus values; 

• Emission offsets: requires emissions above specified offset threshold levels to 

be mitigated with either concurrent reductions or past reductions which have 

been banked as emission reduction credits (ERC); 

• Public notification: a 30 or 45 day notice period prior to issuance of an Authority 

to Construct (ATC) to garner comments on projects that result in emissions 

above specified levels. 

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

The primary purpose of Rule 2530 is to provide facilities whose actual emissions are 

consistently low to employ mechanisms to avoid Title V permitting requirements. Facilities 

that maintain sufficient records to demonstrate that actual emissions from the facility are 

less than 50 percent of all major source emissions thresholds are considered to have a 

“federally enforceable potential to emit” that is less than the District’s Title V thresholds. 

DISCUSSION: 

Purpose of the Rule Revisions 

On April 30, 2007, the District adopted the 2007 Ozone Plan for attainment of the 

federal 8-hour standard and requested the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin be 

redesignated to “extreme”. The 2007 Ozone Plan was then submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board (ARB) to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 

November 17, 2007. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and implementing regulations 

require that 8-hour extreme nonattainment areas incorporate certain requirements into 

their NSR rules. The District is proposing amendments to Rule 2201 to change the 

major source and major modification thresholds and to make other changes to address 

these federal 8-hour ozone extreme nonattainment requirements. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

3 

Also as a result of the District’s 8-hour ozone extreme nonattainment status, the District 

must make changes to its Title V permitting program. Specifically, Rule 2530 (Federally 

Enforceable Potential to Emit) will also be amended to reflect the 8-hour extreme 

nonattainment designation’s major source threshold requirements for the ozone 

precursors, NOx and VOC. 

If adopted by the Governing Board on December 18, 2008, the proposed amendments 

will be effective upon EPA approval. Regardless of the effective date of the Rules, 

federal regulations will require that the federal NSR requirements be implemented 

through Appendix S of 40 CFR part 51 as of the date that EPA approves the District’s 

redesignation to “extreme” nonattainment. For more discussion of Appendix S and its 

requirements, please see the Final Draft Staff Report, Appendix B, dated December 18, 

2008. 

It is important to note that implementing the requirements contained in these rules will 

also implement the identical 1-hour ozone “extreme” nonattainment NSR requirements. 

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS (0.12 ppb) had been revoked by EPA, and during the 

implementation of the more health-protective eight-hour standard, EPA stated that 

existing 1-hour NSR requirements were no longer necessary, since there was no 1-hour 

standard to base the requirements. But the Washington DC Circuit Court said EPA 

erred in relaxing the 1-hour ozone NSR requirements and were still applicable, even if 

the basis for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was no longer in effect. Therefore these 

revisions are also being adopted to implement the 1-hour ozone NSR “extreme” 

nonattainment requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2201 

The major source definition in Section 3.24 will be amended to change the major source 

emission thresholds in Table 3-4. In the table, the NOx and VOC thresholds will each 

be changed from 50,000 pounds per year to 20,000 pounds per year. 

Amendments to the federal major modification definition in Section 3.17 will change the 

significance thresholds in Table 3-1. The significance thresholds will be changed from 

50,000 pounds per year to zero (0) pounds per year for both NOx and VOC. Section 

3.23 is renamed “SB 288 Major Modification” to capture the intent of maintaining this 

definition in its pre-SB 288 condition (see SB 288 discussion in section IV.B of the 

attached staff report). Also, Section 3.17 will be more clearly tied to the federal 

requirements by referencing the appropriate federal regulations and law. In addition, 

the Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Section, 3.17.2, will be clarified, as PAL 

exclusions can not be applied to ozone precursors in extreme ozone nonattainment 

areas, per 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1)(ii). 

Section 4.8, the distance offsets ratio within 15 miles of the new or modified emissions 

unit’s Stationary Source would be changed from 1.3 to 1.5 for major increases of NOx 

or VOC. Alternatively the second option to address the 8-hour extreme area federal 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

4 

offset requirement would be to require all existing major sources to apply best available 

control technology, as defined in Section 169(3) of the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act. The 

District does not have such a BACT requirement in the state plan at this time. In 

addition, because SB 288 does not allow us to relax our current offsetting requirements 

(see Section IV.B of the attached staff report), the 1.2 offsetting ratio would be very 

limited, to reductions supplied at the site of the increased emissions. Therefore, we are 

not pursuing this option at this time, although language is added to allow us to pursue it 

further at a future date. 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 

This Rule provides exemptions from Title V permitting based on actual emissions, and 

requires recordkeeping and reporting to maintain the exemptions. The recordkeeping 

and reporting exemption is updated for NOx and VOC from 5 tons per year to 2 tons per 

year (both of which are at 20% of the relevant major source thresholds). The reporting 

requirements in Section 5.5.2 will now apply at 2.5 tons per year (25% of the major 

source thresholds) for both NOx and VOC. The emission limitations of Section 6.1.1 

would apply at 5 tons per year (50% of the new thresholds). The quantity of emissions 

in Sections 5.4.2 and 6.2 have been changed to correspond with 50% of the extreme 

NOx and VOC threshold levels. 

Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40728.5, the District is required 

to analyze the cost effectiveness of new rules that implement Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT). The proposed amendments do not add BARCT 

requirements and therefore are not subject to the cost effectiveness analysis mandate. 

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis:

State law requires the District to analyze the socioeconomic impacts of any proposed 

rule amendment that significantly affects air quality or strengthens an emission 

limitation. The draft amendments will have neither effect, and is therefore not subject to 

the socioeconomic analysis mandate. 

Rule Consistency Analysis: 

Pursuant to CH&SC Section 40727.2 (g) a rule consistency analysis of the draft rule is 

not required. The draft rule does not strengthen emission limits or impose more 

stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. 

Environmental Impacts:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, staff investigated the possible 

environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. Because this rule does not relax 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

5 

any current NSR provisions, and possessing no evidence to the contrary, District staff 

have concluded that the proposed amendments will not have any significant adverse effect 

on the environment. Staff will prepare a Notice of Exemption under the provisions of 

Public Resource Code 15061(b)(3) for this project. 

Rule Development Process:

District staff conducted a scoping meeting on April 23, 2008, in which the preliminary staff 

report was presented for discussion. District staff requested public participation and input 

regarding legal and technical concerns for inclusion in the rule development process. 

District Staff then conducted a workshop on July 29, 2008 to present, discuss and take 

additional comments on the proposed rulemaking and the draft Rules. Comments 

received from the public, affected sources and the EPA on the July 29 proposals were 

incorporated into the draft Rules as appropriate. 

Finally, your board received and filed the draft rules at your October board meeting. The 

notice of the public adoption hearing for this rule project was published in a general 

circulation newspaper in each of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties, and mailed to 

affected sources and interested parties. The public notice solicited written comments to be 

submitted by mail, and identified the names and telephone numbers of the District staff 

who could answer questions and respond to comments. Comments received are 

addressed in the attached Final Staff Report. 

FISCAL IMPACT: 

District staff expects some increases in workload due to these Rule amendments. 

Approximately 350 additional air pollution sources will be required to obtain Title V permits, 

significantly increasing the number of Title V facilities in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Approximately 500 additional agricultural sources of air pollution will be required to obtain 

operating permits. The increased workload will include an early surge due to the initial 

permitting requirements, starting late in the current fiscal year, and these earliest efforts 

will be handled with existing and temporary staff. Additional ongoing permitting tasks will 

also be generated by these additional sources. Similarly, the Compliance Department 

workload will increase. Title V operating permits require substantial recordkeeping and 

reporting, and more frequent inspections. Additionally, newly permitted agricultural 

sources will require initial and ongoing inspections. The permitting and compliance 

workload increases will be streamlined to the extent possible, consistent with our 

continuous efforts to improve operating efficiency. Any additional staffing needs will be 

assessed as we implement the revised Rules, and will be addressed through staffing 

increases only after all possible streamlining has been implemented. Such staffing 

increases, if necessary, are unlikely to be fully identified at the time of the preparation of 

the District’s 2009-10 Budget, and therefore will likely take the form of a mid-year budget 

adjustment. However, the additional costs to the District are expected to be largely 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MODIFIED STATIONARY SOURCE 

REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT) 

December 18, 2008 

6 

recovered by the District’s existing fee regulations, through both hourly processing fees 

and annual permit to operate renewal fees charged to the recipients of these new 

permits. Therefore, no adjustment to the 2008-09 District Budget is being requested at 

this time. 

Attachments: 

Resolution for Amendments to Rule 2201 and 2530 (5 pages) 

Proposed Rule 2201 (39 pages) 

Proposed Rule 2530 (12 pages) 

Final Staff Report (32 pages) 
San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

February 4, 2009 

Mr. Mike Guzzetta, Manager 

Rule Evaluation Section 

California Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 281 5 

Sacramento, CA 9581 2 

Dear Mr. Guzmetta: 

Attached is the Rule Action Package for Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source 

Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit) that were adopted by 

the San Jsaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's Governing Board on December 

18, 2068. We request the California Air Resources Board (ARB) transmit this rule and the 

appropriate documentation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a 

SIP revision. Please note that Rules 2201 and 2530 will not become effective until EPA 

approves them into the SIP. 

Included in this Rule Action Package are the following attachments: 

1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

2. ARB APCDIAQMD Rule Evaluation Form 

3, Clean copy of Rule 2201 and Rule 2530 

4. Governing Board Resolution 

5. Evidence of Public Hearing 

6. Other Materials (Staff Report, Public Comments and District Responses, Draft Rules, 

and Board Memo) 

If you have any questions regarding this rule, please contact Carlos Garcia at (559) 230- 

6008 or by e-mail at carlos.qarcia@valleyair.orq. The District thanks you and your staff for 

your assistance. 

David Warner 

Director of Permit Services 

Attachments 

Seyed Sadredin 

Execul.ive DirectorIAir Pollution Control Officer 

Northern Region Central Region (Main Office) Southern Region 

4800 Enterpr~se Way 1990 E Gettysburg Avenue 2700 M Street, Sulte 275 

Modesto, CA 95356-8718 Fresno, CA 93726-0244 Bakersf~eld, CA 93301-2373 

Tel (209) 557-6400 FAX (209) 557-6475 Tel (559)230-6000 FAX (559) 230-6061 Tel. (661)326-6900 FAX (661) 326-6985 

wwwvalleya~rorg 

Printed on recycled paper.C#