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 Implementat ion Plan (SIP) revisions must be supported by certa in information and documentation for the rule packages to be deeme d complete for review by the EPA. Rules will not b e evaluated for approvability by the EPA unless the submittal packa ges are complete. To assist you in determining tha t all necessary materials are included in rules packages sent to th e 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 Co rrecting 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 Enforc eable

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 u nderline and strikeout format all language which has been added, deleted, or chan ged 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 c opy 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 certif ication 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 da te of the public hearing, and a statement of compliance with California Healt h 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 p ublic hearing. Also submit any written responses prepared by the Distri ct 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 m ade during the notice period or at the hearing, please indicate N/A to th e left.5/1/2002 CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST (Electronic Format)

TECHNICAL MATERIALS

Note: All documents and forms should be in electro nic 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 o ther media such as SW846 for solid waste are not automatically approve d for air pollution applications. Submittal of test methods that are n ot EPA-approved should include the information and follow the procedure de scribed in Region 9’s “Test Method Review & Evaluation Process.”

MODELING SUPPORT: Provide if appropriate. In general, modeling sup port is not required for VOC and NOx rules to determine the ir impacts on ozone levels. Modeling is required where a rule is a rel axation that affects large sources (> 100 TPY) in an attainment area for SO2, directly e mitted 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 refere nce back to the approved SIP will be sufficient provided the approved SIP ac counts 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 i ncluded 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, demonstr ating 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 accor ding to EPA’s RACM/BACM policy.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS : Provide District staff reports and any other supporting information concerning development of th e rule or rule changes. This information should explain the basis for all l imits 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 Station ary 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 Stati onary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit), which will become effective upo n EPA approval, incorporate required changes result ing from the reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley's federa l eight-hour ozone attainment status to extreme non attainment. The changes affect the definitions of “major source” an d “federal major modification” by lowering their re spective applicability thresholds, and increase the amount of mitigation r equired 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 imp lemented, will result in quantifiable changes in em issions. Attach reference(s) for emission
factor(s) and other information. Attach calculatio n sheet showing how the emission information provid ed below was determined

.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

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

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

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) : N/ACALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measu re: N/A

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the C ontrol 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 Evaluati on Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emis sion forecasting and planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Source s 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 Cont inuous? Yes No

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

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Re ductions 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): Report ing Requirements in Section(s): 5.8, 7.2, 7.3, 7.45/1/2002 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 are as. No emission reductions are expected from the additiona l 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 25301

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 253028

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

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 1 RULE 2530 FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE POTENTIAL TO EMIT ( Adopted June 15, 1995;

Amended April 25, 2002 ; Amended (date of adoption), but not in effect unt il (date of EPA final approval) )

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this rule is to restrict the potent ial 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 whi ch is a major source of regulated air pollutants or of hazardous air pollutants.

3.0 Definitions

All terms shall retain the definitions provided un der Rule 2520 unless otherwise defined in
this section.

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

basis with a new 12-month period beginning on the f irst day of each calendar
month.

3.2 Actual Emissions: the emissions of a regulate d 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 de termine actual emissions. In the absence of valid continuous emissions monitoring or source test data, the basis for determining actual emissions shall be: throughput o f process materials; throughput of materials stored; usage of materials; data provi ded in manufacturer's product specifications; material volatile organic compound content reports or laboratory analyses; other information required by this rule a nd applicable District, state, and federal regulations; or information requested in wr iting by the District. All calculations of actual emissions shall use EPA, CAR B, or District approved methods, including emission factors and assumptions

.

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

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

emit (including fugitive emissions) 10 tons per yea r 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 shal l not be aggregated with
emissions from other similar units to determine whe ther such units or stations are major sources of HAPs. Deleted: ¶

Deleted: n

# PROPOSED December 18, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 2 3.5 Process Statement: an annual report on permit ted emission units from an owner or

operator of a stationary source certifying under pe nalty of perjury the following: throughput of process materials; throughput of mate rials stored; usage of materials; fuel usage; any available continuous emissions moni toring 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 wi th 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 operati on 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 an d regulations or permit terms and conditions. The owner or operator of the stationar y source shall maintain and operate such air pollution control equipment in a m anner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions . This provision shall not apply after January 1, 1999 unless such operational limit ation 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 unt il, the EPA disapproves the extension of this provision.

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

maintain and make available to the public upon requ est, for each stationary source subject to this rule, information identifying the p rovisions of this rule applicable to
the source.

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

pertaining to any otherwise applicable preconstruct ion 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 nec essary to ensure compliance
with this rule.

4.5 Unless the owner or operator has chosen to ope rate 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 ac tivity which will result in actual emissions that exceed the limits specified i n section 6.1.

4.6 The owner or operator of a stationary source s ubject 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

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 3 activity which will result in an exceedance of an a pplicable 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 fo r 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 fr om qualifying to comply with this rule in the future in lieu of maintaining an a pplication 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 applica ble 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 af ter 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 Dist rict at least 30 days prior to any exceedance, and will submit an application for a Pa rt 70 permit, or otherwise obtain federally-enforceable permit limits, and

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

permit action to otherwise obtain federally-enforce able limits is completed,
within 12 months of the date of notification.

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

with federally enforceable conditions or other fede rally enforceable limits limiting its potential to emit to below the applicable thres hold(s) for a major source.

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

following:

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

emissions in any 12-month period:

5.4.1.1 5 tons per year of a regulated air poll utant (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 H APs, 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

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 4 5.4.2 Any stationary sources for which 90 percent of the stationary sources emissions from the permitted emissions units in eve ry 12-month period are associated with an operation for which the throughp ut 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 chlorof orm (1,1,1-trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroet hylene), 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

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 5 5.5 The reporting requirements of this rule shall n ot 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 carbo n monoxide;

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

5.5.3 15 tons per year for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM 10 );

5.5.4 2.5 tons per year of a single HAP;

5.5.5 6.25 tons per year of any combination of HA Ps; and

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

establish by rule.

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

of stationary source claiming exemption from the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule shall demonstrate the sta tionary source's emissions or throughput are not in excess of the applicable quan tities 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 emiss ion limits prescribed in section 6.1 or the alternative operational limits in section 6.2 of th is rule.

6.1 Emission Limits:

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

following quantity of emissions:

6.1.1 5 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen or volatile org anic 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 (PM 10 );

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 HA Ps, Deleted: 6.25

Deleted: U.S.

Deleted: form

Deleted: 12.5

Deleted: or sulfur dioxide

# PROPOSED December 18, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 6 6.1.6 50 percent of any lesser threshold for a si ngle HAP as the EPA may

establish by rule, and

6.1.7 50 percent of the major source threshold fo r 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 st ationary sources emissions from the

permitted emissions units in every 12-month period are associated with one of the following operations, shall comply with the followi ng operational limits for that operation:

6.2.1 Gasoline Dispensing Facility with Phase I a nd II Vapor Recovery Systems

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

period.

6.2.2 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Units

6.2.2.1 If the solvents do not include methyl c hloroform (1,1,1- trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichlorometha ne), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichlo roethylene,
no more than 2,700 gallons of any combination of solventcontaining materials and 2,200 gallons of any one s olventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period; or

6.2.2.2 If the solvents include methyl chlorofo rm (1,1,1- trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichlorometha ne), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichlo roethylene, no more than 2,900 gallons of any combination of so lventcontaining materials and 1,200 gallons of any one s olventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period.

6.2.3 Paint Spraying Units

The total usage rate of all VOC-containing mater ials, 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

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 7 7.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

7.1 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements o f 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 t he recordkeeping and reporting

requirements of this rule in accordance with sectio n 5.4 of this rule, shall comply with applicable recordkeeping and reporting require ments 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 r ule, the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall comply with any a pplicable recordkeeping requirements in this section.

7.4 Any additional information requested by the AP CO 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 sourc e subject to this rule shall keep

and maintain records for each permitted emission un it or groups of permitted
emission units sufficient to determine actual emiss ions. 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 D istrict, CARB, or EPA staff upon request. (In some cases it may be approp riate to keep records on groups of emissions units which are connected in se ries. 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 sub ject 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, solvent s, inks and adhesives in
use. This list shall include: information on the manufacturer, brand, product name or code, VOC cont ent in grams per liter or pounds per gallon, HAPs content in grams per liter or pounds per gallon, or manufacturer's p roduct Deleted: U.S.

# PROPOSED December 18, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 8 specifications, material VOC content reports or lab oratory analyses providing this information;

7.5.2.2 A description of any equipment used dur ing and after coating/solvent application, including type, make a nd model; maximum design process rate or throughput; control device(s) type and description (if any); and a desc ription of the coating/solvent application/drying method(s) em ployed;

7.5.2.3 A monthly log of the consumption of eac h 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 othe r documents to support information in the monthly log.

7.5.3 Organic Liquid Storage Unit

The owner or operator of a stationary source sub ject 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 st ored and monthly throughput; and

7.5.3.2 Information on the tank design and spec ifications including control equipment.

7.5.4 Combustion Emission Unit

The owner or operator of a stationary source sub ject 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 oxidizer s) and capacity, control device(s) type and description (i f any) and all source test information; and

7.5.4.2 A monthly log of hours of operation, fu el 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

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 9 7.5.5 Emission Control Unit

The owner or operator of a stationary source sub ject to this rule that contains an emission control unit shall keep and maintain th e following records:

7.5.5.1 Information on equipment type and descr iption, make and model, and emission units served by the control uni t;

7.5.5.2 Information on equipment design includi ng where applicable: pollutant(s) controlled; control effec tiveness; maximum design or rated capacity; inlet and outlet temperatures, and concentrations for each pollutant controlled; catalyst data (type, material, life, vo lume, space velocity, ammonia injection rate and temperature); baghouse data (design, cleaning method, fabric material, flo w 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 inc luding 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 sub ject 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 equipmen t including the following: equipment type, description, make and m odel; 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 produ ction rate; and

7.5.6.4 Purchase orders, invoices, and other do cuments to support information in the monthly log. Deleted:

Deleted: 5

Deleted: subsections A, B or C

# PROPOSED December 18, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 10 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 subje ct 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 s ubject to this rule under any one

alternative operational limit, the owner or operato r shall operate the stationary source in compliance with the alternative operation al limit as prescribed in section 6.2 and shall comply with the following recordkeepi ng and reporting requirements:

7.6.1 The owner or operator shall report within 2 4 hours to the APCO any

exceedance of the alternative operational limit.

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

documents to support information required to be mai ntained 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 staf f 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 di spensed in the preceding month with a monthly calculation of the t otal gallons dispensed in the previous 12 months shall b e kept on
site.

7.6.3.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

7.6.4 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Unit

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

in compliance with the following requirements:

7.6.4.1 A monthly log of amount and type of sol vent used in the preceding month with a monthly calculation of the t otal gallons used in the previous 12 months shall be kep t on site. Deleted: U.S.

# PROPOSED December 18, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 11 7.6.4.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

7.6.5 Paint Spraying Unit

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

with the following requirements:

7.6.5.1 A monthly log of the gallons of VOC-con taining materials used in the preceding month with a monthly calculat ion of the total gallons used in the previous 12 months sh all be kept
on site.

7.6.5.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

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

Brake Horsepower

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

compliance with the following requirements:

7.6.6.1 A monthly log of hours of operation, g allons of fuel used, and a monthly calculation of the total hours operat ed and gallons of fuel used in the previous 12 months shal l be kept
on site.

7.6.6.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

8.0 Violations

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

violation of this rule. Each day during which a vi olation 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 252 0 when the conditions specified
in either subsections 8.2.1 or 8.2.2 below, occur: Deleted:

Deleted: OR

# PROPOSED December 18, 2008

Proposed Amendments to Rule 2530 2530 - 12 8.2.1 Commencing on the first day following every 12-month period in which the stationary source exceeds a limit specified in sect ion 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 stat ionary 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 Dis trict's annual permit review process required by Health & Safety Code section 42301(e). In performing the evaluation, the APCO shall consider any annual process statemen t submitted pursuant to section 7.0 reporting requirements. In the absence of vali d 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 12/18/08 2530 - 1 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 potent ial 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 whi ch is a major source of regulated air pollutants or of hazardous air pollutants.

3.0 Definitions

All terms shall retain the definitions provided un der Rule 2520 unless otherwise defined in
this section.

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

basis with a new 12-month period beginning on the f irst day of each calendar
month.

3.2 Actual Emissions: the emissions of a regulate d 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 de termine actual emissions. In the absence of valid continuous emissions monitoring or source test data, the basis for determining actual emissions shall be: throughput o f process materials; throughput of materials stored; usage of materials; data provi ded in manufacturer's product specifications; material volatile organic compound content reports or laboratory analyses; other information required by this rule a nd applicable District, state, and federal regulations; or information requested in wr iting by the District. All calculations of actual emissions shall use EPA, CAR B, or District approved methods, including emission factors and assumptions

.

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

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

emit (including fugitive emissions) 10 tons per yea r 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 shal l not be aggregated with
emissions from other similar units to determine whe ther such units or stations are major sources of HAPs.SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 2 3.5 Process Statement: an annual report on permit ted emission units from an owner or

operator of a stationary source certifying under pe nalty of perjury the following: throughput of process materials; throughput of mate rials stored; usage of materials; fuel usage; any available continuous emissions moni toring 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 wi th 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 operati on 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 an d regulations or permit terms and conditions. The owner or operator of the stationar y source shall maintain and operate such air pollution control equipment in a m anner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions . This provision shall not apply after January 1, 1999 unless such operational limit ation 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 unt il, the EPA disapproves the extension of this provision.

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

maintain and make available to the public upon requ est, for each stationary source subject to this rule, information identifying the p rovisions of this rule applicable to
the source.

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

pertaining to any otherwise applicable preconstruct ion 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 nec essary to ensure compliance
with this rule.

4.5 Unless the owner or operator has chosen to ope rate 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 ac tivity which will result in actual emissions that exceed the limits specified i n section 6.1.SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 3 4.6 The owner or operator of a stationary source s ubject 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 a pplicable 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 fo r 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 fr om qualifying to comply with this rule in the future in lieu of maintaining an a pplication 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 applica ble 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 af ter 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 Dist rict at least 30 days prior to any exceedance, and will submit an application for a Pa rt 70 permit, or otherwise obtain federally-enforceable permit limits, and

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

permit action to otherwise obtain federally-enforce able limits is completed,
within 12 months of the date of notification.

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

with federally enforceable conditions or other fede rally enforceable limits limiting its potential to emit to below the applicable thres hold(s) for a major source.

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

following:

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

emissions in any 12-month period:

5.4.1.1 5 tons per year of a regulated air poll utant (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 H APs, andSJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 4 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 eve ry 12-month period are associated with an operation for which the throughp ut is less than or equal to one of the following quantities:

5.4.2.1 560 gallons of any combination of solve nt containing material but no more than 220 gallons of any one so lventcontaining 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 solven t containing materials where the material contain methyl chlorof orm (1,1,1-trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichloromethane), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroet hylene), 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 f rom 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 co mbusted.SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 5 5.5 The reporting requirements of this rule shall n ot 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 carbo n monoxide;

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

5.5.3 15 tons per year for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM 10 );

5.5.4 2.5 tons per year of a single HAP;

5.5.5 6.25 tons per year of any combination of HA Ps; and

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

establish by rule.

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

of stationary source claiming exemption from the re cordkeeping and reporting requirements of this rule shall demonstrate the sta tionary source's emissions or throughput are not in excess of the applicable quan tities 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 emiss ion limits prescribed in section 6.1 or the alternative operational limits in section 6.2 of th is rule.

6.1 Emission Limits:

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

following quantity of emissions:

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

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

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

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 HA Ps,SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 6 6.1.6 50 percent of any lesser threshold for a si ngle HAP as the EPA may

establish by rule, and

6.1.7 50 percent of the major source threshold fo r 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 st ationary sources emissions from the

permitted emissions units in every 12-month period are associated with one of the following operations, shall comply with the followi ng operational limits for that operation:

6.2.1 Gasoline Dispensing Facility with Phase I a nd II Vapor Recovery Systems

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

period.

6.2.2 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Units

6.2.2.1 If the solvents do not include methyl c hloroform (1,1,1- trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichlorometha ne), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichlo roethylene, no more than 2,700 gallons of any combination of so lventcontaining materials and 2,200 gallons of any one s olventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period; or

6.2.2.2 If the solvents include methyl chlorofo rm (1,1,1- trichloroethane), methylene chloride (dichlorometha ne), tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), or trichlo roethylene, no more than 2,900 gallons of any combination of so lventcontaining materials and 1,200 gallons of any one s olventcontaining material is used in any 12-month period.

6.2.3 Paint Spraying Units

The total usage rate of all VOC-containing mater ials, 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 12/18/08 2530 - 7 7.0 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

7.1 The recordkeeping and reporting requirements o f 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 t he recordkeeping and reporting

requirements of this rule in accordance with sectio n 5.4 of this rule, shall comply with applicable recordkeeping and reporting require ments 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 r ule, the owner or operator of a stationary source subject to this rule shall comply with any a pplicable recordkeeping requirements in this section.

7.4 Any additional information requested by the AP CO 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 sourc e subject to this rule shall keep

and maintain records for each permitted emission un it or groups of permitted
emission units sufficient to determine actual emiss ions. 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 D istrict, CARB, or EPA staff upon request. (In some cases it may be approp riate to keep records on groups of emissions units which are connected in se ries. 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 sub ject 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, solvent s, inks and adhesives in
use. This list shall include: information on the manufacturer, brand, product name or code, VOC cont ent in grams per liter or pounds per gallon, HAPs content in grams per liter or pounds per gallon, or manufacturer's p roductSJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 8 specifications, material VOC content reports or lab oratory analyses providing this information;

7.5.2.2 A description of any equipment used dur ing and after coating/solvent application, including type, make a nd model; maximum design process rate or throughput; control device(s) type and description (if any); and a desc ription of the coating/solvent application/drying method(s) em ployed;

7.5.2.3 A monthly log of the consumption of eac h 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 othe r documents to support information in the monthly log.

7.5.3 Organic Liquid Storage Unit

The owner or operator of a stationary source sub ject 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 st ored and monthly throughput; and

7.5.3.2 Information on the tank design and spec ifications including control equipment.

7.5.4 Combustion Emission Unit

The owner or operator of a stationary source sub ject 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 oxidizer s) and capacity, control device(s) type and description (i f any) and all source test information; and

7.5.4.2 A monthly log of hours of operation, fu el 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 12/18/08 2530 - 9 7.5.5 Emission Control Unit

The owner or operator of a stationary source sub ject to this rule that contains an emission control unit shall keep and maintain th e following records:

7.5.5.1 Information on equipment type and descr iption, make and model, and emission units served by the control uni t;

7.5.5.2 Information on equipment design includi ng where applicable: pollutant(s) controlled; control effec tiveness; maximum design or rated capacity; inlet and outlet temperatures, and concentrations for each pollutant controlled; catalyst data (type, material, life, vo lume, space velocity, ammonia injection rate and temperature); baghouse data (design, cleaning method, fabric material, flo w 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 inc luding 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 sub ject to this rule that contains
an emission unit not included in section 7.5.2 thro ugh 7.5.4 above shall keep and maintain the following records:

7.5.6.1 Information on the process and equipmen t including the following: equipment type, description, make and m odel; 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 produ ction rate; and

7.5.6.4 Purchase orders, invoices, and other do cuments to support information in the monthly log.SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 10 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 subje ct 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 s ubject to this rule under any one

alternative operational limit, the owner or operato r shall operate the stationary source in compliance with the alternative operation al limit as prescribed in section 6.2 and shall comply with the following recordkeepi ng and reporting requirements:

7.6.1 The owner or operator shall report within 2 4 hours to the APCO any

exceedance of the alternative operational limit.

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

documents to support information required to be mai ntained 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 staf f 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 di spensed in the preceding month with a monthly calculation of the t otal gallons dispensed in the previous 12 months shall b e kept on
site.

7.6.3.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

7.6.4 Degreasing or Solvent-Using Unit

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

in compliance with the following requirements:

7.6.4.1 A monthly log of amount and type of sol vent used in the preceding month with a monthly calculation of the t otal gallons used in the previous 12 months shall be kep t on site.SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 11 7.6.4.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

7.6.5 Paint Spraying Unit

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

with the following requirements:

7.6.5.1 A monthly log of the gallons of VOC-con taining materials used in the preceding month with a monthly calculat ion of the total gallons used in the previous 12 months sh all be kept
on site.

7.6.5.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

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

Brake Horsepower

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

compliance with the following requirements:

7.6.6.1 A monthly log of hours of operation, g allons of fuel used, and a monthly calculation of the total hours operat ed and gallons of fuel used in the previous 12 months shal l be kept
on site.

7.6.6.2 A copy of the monthly log shall be subm itted to the APCO at the time of annual permit renewal. The owner or op erator shall certify that the log is accurate and true.

8.0 Violations

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

violation of this rule. Each day during which a vi olation 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 252 0 when the conditions specified in either subsections 8.2.1 or 8.2.2 below, occur:SJVUAPCD 12/18/08 2530 - 12 8.2.1 Commencing on the first day following every 12-month period in which the stationary source exceeds a limit specified in sect ion 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 stat ionary 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 Dis trict's annual permit review process required by Health & Safety Code section 42301(e). In performing the evaluation, the APCO shall consider any annual process statemen t submitted pursuant to section 7.0 reporting requirements. In the absence of vali d 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. 21.2008SAN 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.

DatedYk 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 21,2008Visalia 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~deramending 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 DI STRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT

Proposed Amendments to

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Revie w Rule)
and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

Prepared by: Carlos Garcia, Senior Air Quality Engi neer Reviewed by: David Warner, Director of Permit Servi ces, and George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer

December 18, 2008

I. SUMMARY

Rule 2201, New and Modified Stationary Source Revie w (NSR), provides the mechanism for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Co ntrol District (District) to issue permits to new and expanding businesses. Its primary purpo se 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 nonatta inment areas, and applies to new and modified stationary sources that emit nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulate matter with an aerodyn amic diameter of less than ten microns (PM-10), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxi de (CO), and other pollutants subject to District permitting requirements.

On April 30, 2007, the District adopted the 2007 Oz one Plan for attainment of the federal 8-hour standard and requested the San Joaqu in Valley Air Basin be redesignated to “extreme”. The 2007 Ozone Plan was then submitted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to the federal Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) on November 17, 2007. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA ) and implementing regulations require that 8-hour extreme nonattainment areas inc orporate certain requirements into their NSR rules. The District is proposing amendmen ts 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 re quirements, and we expect the revised rules to be adopted in December 2008.

Also as a result of the District’s 8-hour ozone ext reme 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 Di strict

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 Re view Rule):

The District’s NSR rule provides a regulatory mecha nism for allowing continued economic growth while minimizing the amount of emis sion 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 per mitting 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 2 010 (Permits Required).

Key features of Rule 2201 include:

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT): mandate s emission controls to minimize emission increases above de minimis values ;

• Emission offsets: requires emissions above specif ied 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, Perm it to Operate and administrative requirements for the processing of NSR applications

.

B. Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Em it)
The primary purpose of Rule 2530 is to provide faci lities whose actual emissions are consistently low to employ mechanisms to avoid Titl e V permitting requirements. Facilities that maintain sufficient records to demo nstrate that actual emissions from the facility are less than 50 percent of all major sour ce 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 Di strict

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 f or the 8-Hour Ozone Standard

On April 30, 2004, EPA issued the 8-hour ozone stan dard designations (69 FR 23951), in which EPA originally designated the SJVAB as a s erious nonattainment area. However, as outlined in the District’s 2007 Ozone P lan, the District determined that the only option to reach attainment was to be classifie d as an “extreme nonattainment” area for the 8-hour ozone standard. The Federal Clean A ir Act NSR requirements for extreme nonattainment areas state that we must adop t 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 exc eed 10 tons per year of NOx or VOC. This reduced major source threshold affects im plementation of two major permitting programs: New Source Review (NSR) and Ti tle V permitting.

To incorporate the extreme nonattainment classifica tion 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 potenti al to emit, at least 10 tons per year of VOCs or NOx.

Modifications to
Sources Any change at a major stationary source that result s in any increase in emissions from any discrete operation, unit, or other pollutant-em itting activity at the source shall be considered a modification from the standpoint of pe rmit requirements unless the increase is offset by reductions in the same pollut ant from other discrete operations within the same source at an offset ratio of at lea st 1.3 to 1.

Offset Requirement The ratio of total emission reductions of VOCs or N Ox to total increased emissions of such air pollutant shall be at least 1.5 to 1, exce pt 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 rat io shall be 1.2 to 1.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 Re view 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 ta ble, the NOx and VOC thresholds will each be changed from 50,000 pounds per year to 20,0 00 pounds per year.

Amendments to the federal major modification defini tion in Section 3.17 will change the significance thresholds in Table 3-1. The significa nce 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 capt ure 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 ad dition, 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 are as, per 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1)(ii).

Section 4.8, the distance offsets ratio within 15 m iles 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 t he 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 offsetti ng ratio would be very limited, to reductions supplied at the site of the increased em issions. Therefore, we are not pursuing this option at this time, although languag e is added to allow us to pursue it further at a future date.

If we do pursue the latter option, a new District r ule 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 220 1. Alternatively, the District may pursue an analysis that shows all existing major so urces in the San Joaquin Valley currently have controls in place that fit the defin ition 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 a nd federal major modifications must supply NOx and VOC offsets at a 1.5:1 ratio.

It is important to note that implementing the requi rements 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 nec essary, 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 req uirements and that these NSRSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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-h our ozone NAAQS was no longer in effect. Therefore these revisions are also being a dopted to implement the 1-hour ozone NSR “extreme” nonattainment requirements.

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

This rule provides exemptions from Title V permitti ng based on actual emissions, and requires recordkeeping and reporting to maintain th e 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 ap ply 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 p er 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 level s.

2. Prohibitory Rules Applicable to Major Sources

The major source definition in some District prohib itory rules refer directly to major source definition in Rule 2201. Since the major so urce threshold for NOx and VOC is dropping to ten tons per year, sources between 10 a nd 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 applicati on to comply with these rules:

Rule 4610 (Glass Coating Operations) Rule 4693 (Bakery Ovens)

In addition, two rules reference the Rule 2201 defi nition of major source, or refer to prior major source thresholds. However, the following tw o rules have no current applicability and therefore need not be addressed further at this time:

Rule 4351 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process H eaters - Phase 1) Rule 4501 (Alternative Compliance for Best Availabl e Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT))

B. Permitting of Additional Agricultural Sources

California Heath and Safety Code (CH&SC), Section 4 2301.16 requires agricultural sources with emissions over one-half a district’s m ajor source thresholds to obtain district operating permits. With the proposed chan ges 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 w hose actual emissions are 5 tons per year of NOx or VOC, which is a drop from the curren t permitting threshold of 12.5 tonsSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 agric ultural sources that will need permits is expected to be 350 dairies (with about 2,200 per mits) and 150 farms (with about 1,100 permit units). Newly subject agricultural so urces 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 permi tting requirements, and then file timely permit applications.

C. Title V Permitting Program

Lowering the major source threshold will subject ad ditional facilities to federal permitting requirements under Title V of the FCAA. Lowering t he 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 em issions are between 10 and 25 tons per year of NOx or VOC would become subject to Titl e 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 sou rce 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 EP A approval of the revisions. Again, the District will implement significant outreach effort s 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 Ozo ne 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 designat ion to severe, potentially negating the need for the rule, we waited for ARB’s final ac tion. We therefore intend to submit the revised rule to ARB as quickly as practicable a fter the District’s December 18, 2008 board meeting, there being no board meeting in Nove mber.

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 appr ovable NSR program for the 8-hour standard. Thus for this requirement, EPA mandates t hat 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 ad option progress at the time that EPA approves the District’s reclassification to “extrem e” nonattainment, as that finding will trigger 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S, requirements. At the time of this writing, this EPASan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 20 09. 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 b e using the existing equivalency demonstration process of that rule to continue to d emonstrate compliance with federal “extreme” nonattainment offsetting requirements

The District conducted a scoping meeting on April 2 3, 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 Octobe r 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 revis ions 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 CLAS SIFICATION

While the proposed changes are relatively straightf orward, the ramifications on economic growth in the San Joaquin Valley may be se vere, 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 (mor e stringent in some areas and less stringent in others), EPA requires us to demonstrat e, on an annual basis, that the overall offsetting requirements are at least as str ingent 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 Credit s (ERCs) and enhanced offsetting requirements, which were designed to make the permi tting process less burdensome for both affected industry and the District while s till 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 N SR program and must make an annual demonstration that the ERCs are equivalent t o 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 r eporting actions involved with the annual equivalency demonstration and steps to be ta ken to correct any ERC shortfalls. This section also details the required actions to b e taken if an ERC shortfall occurred. Rule 2201 has a self-implementing offset shortfall remedy procedure which entails following the federal offsetting requirements direc tly, until the shortfall is eliminated.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 permittee s unless equivalency cannot be demonstrated and the indicated remedies must be imp lemented.

In general, offsets are certified emissions reducti ons that are used to mitigate emissions increases. The District’s offsetting program curre ntly 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 t o 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 requirem ents are more stringent than federal offsetting requirements. However, there is another factor. Federal offsetting requirements mandate adjustment of certified emissi ons 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 emissi ons reductions were originally created.

Only new major sources and federal major modificati ons 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 f or new major sources and the significance thresholds for federal major modificat ions 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 o n to demonstrate equivalency have come from the minor source offsetting of sources pe rmitted at more than 10 tons per year of VOC or NOx, while federal surplus offsets w ould only have been required for 25 ton and greater sources. Since we now must lower t he federal offsetting level to 10 tons per year, these “extra” district offsets large ly disappear. Similarly, the necessitated change to federal offset ratios may also eliminate some “extra” District offsets that we have traditionally relied on to demonstrate equival ency.

If we do fail to demonstrate that we have required as many surplus credits as a federal program, new major sources and federal major modifi cations permitted after the failure must use surplus offsets for the pollutant that fai led the demonstration, until a subsequent tracking report once again demonstrates equivalency.

As an example, nitrogen oxide (NOx) is the pollutan t for which failure is most likely. Surplus NOx credits make up a small percentage of o ur banked NOx credits, less than 10% of the total, likely resulting in the cost of o ffsetting NOx to become very expensive, with new NOx offsets very difficult to generate, as well.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 economi c growth in the San Joaquin Valley, are not being addressed as a part of this rule modi fication. The District is, however, very concerned about these potential impacts, and t hey will be considered as part of an upcoming rule adoption process to begin in early 20 09. 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 (li ke the South Coast’s RECLAIM program); or two, a more innovative major-source fe e that is used to generate grant fund revenue that can be granted to project propone nts achieving surplus reductions. The former would eliminate the tracking program alt ogether, while the second would likely be used as a mechanism to generate surplus c redits sufficient to balance the equivalency demonstration.

B. SB 288

California Health and Safety Code Sections 42500 th rough 42507 (SB 288) mandates that a District’s New Source Review (NSR) rules can not be made less stringent, in a variety of specified areas, than the rules that exi sted on December 30, 2002 1 . This legislation was crafted and signed into law specifi cally to prevent Districts from implementing any Federal NSR reforms that would hav e relaxed California’s stringent NSR requirements. The state Air Resources Board (ARB) has provided guidance on the implementation of SB 288, and has concluded tha t there are four components of NSR that are affected:

1. NSR applicability determinations. 2. The definitions of “modification”, “major modifi cation”, “routine maintenance”, and “repair or maintenance”. 3. The calculation methodology, thresholds, or othe r procedures of new source review. ARB further interprets this to apply to ba seline determinations, calculating emissions changes, offset amounts requi red and major source and major modification thresholds. 4. On a program-wide basis, the requirement to obta in offsets.

The first three of these components apply to each g iven 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 w ould 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 Distri ct’s NSR program allow relaxation of any of these components (nor are there any rela xations of any kind).

The fourth component, for offsets, is a program-wid e component. ARB’s SB 288 interpretation is that, while offset requirements f or a given project may be relaxed, the

1 There are some narrowly defined exceptions to thes e “anti-backsliding” provisions, but none apply to this rule amendment and therefore the exceptions will no t be discussed further in this staff report.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 sin ce SB 288 was adopted did not relax any requirement in any way prohibited by SB 2 88, or if there was a relaxation of program-wide offsetting requirements, it met ARB’s de minimus test.

These newest proposed modifications are therefore t ested against the latest revisions. The obvious conclusion is that if these latest revi sions are no less stringent than the latest NSR rule approved by ARB, they can not be le ss 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 become s applicable. For instance, since all facilities over 10 tons per year will be major sour ces, 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 stati onary source (currently allowed at 1.1:1), or within 15 miles of the increase (current ly allowed at 1.2:1 or 1.3:1).

In addition, lowering the major source and the fede ral major modification thresholds will result in many more projects subject to the annual equivalency tracking system, and will likely cause failure of the equivalency demonstrati on in the near term. This will, in turn, require the application of surplus-at-time-of-use o ffsetting requirements for these same projects.

While the District will be looking for methods to f urther address this surplus-at-time-ofuse offsetting requirement (see last paragraph of s ection IV.A of this report), none of the methods can side-step the basic requirement tha t the District require, on a programwide basis, sufficient surplus-at-time-of-use credi ts to offset all federal major project increases. This requirement will result in signifi cantly increased surplus-at-time-of-use offsets in the coming years after adoption of this rule.

In conclusion, no NSR rule requirement has been rel axed with these modifications, so obviously no SB 288-prohibitted relaxation is takin g 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 surplu s-at-time-of-use offsets expected to be required in the future. Therefore, these rule r evisions are more stringent than the December 30, 2002 version of our NSR rule and are n ot 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. Distric t staff requested public participation and input regarding legal and technical concerns fo r inclusion in the continued rule development process.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 in to the draft rules as appropriate, and full responses are seen in the attached Appendi x A. The anticipated adoption date for amendments to Rules 2201 and 2530 is Decem ber 18, 2008.

VI. COST EFFECTIVENESS AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANA LYSIS

Pursuant to State law, the District is required to analyze the cost effectiveness of any proposed rule amendment that implement Best Availab le Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). The draft amendments do not add BARCT requ irements and therefore are not subject to the cost effectiveness analysis mand ate.

Additionally, state law requires the District to an alyze 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 consis tency analysis of the draft rule is not required. The draft rule does not strengthen e mission limits or impose more stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping r equirements.

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA), staff has investigated the possible environmental impacts of the proposed amen dments. 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 havi ng to do with offsetting have been made more stringent and are therefore more protecti ve of air quality. Therefore these revisions can be assumed to have no negative enviro nmental 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 othe r environmental concerns. Finally, specific projects that are subject to this rule mus t by definition receive discretionary permits from the District, at which time project-sp ecific CEQA analyses must beSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 l ack 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, 20 08 version) Appendix B – Comments and Responses (June 30, 2008 and July 31, 2008 versions)

## APPENDIX A

Comments and Responses regarding the following rule s:

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Revie w Rule)

October 16, 2008 version

and

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

October 16, 2008 versionSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 REVIE W 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 Indu strial 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 por tion would be less than the category as a whole. Since the major source definit ions apply to all stationary sources, projects resulting in small increases in e missions would trigger expensive offsets and control technology. Because of this, Si mplot 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 competitor s 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 i s another reason the costs to be incurred by the chemical industrial facilities are exorbitant.

Because mobile sources are contributing a much larg er 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 Di strict

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 impl ement federal law related to our extreme nonattainment ozone designation. While we appreciate the comment, there really is no option other than to implement t hese proposed changes.

Regarding mobile source emissions, we agree that re ductions in such emissions are critically important to achieving healthy air in th e San Joaquin Valley. In fact, significant effort has been placed on achieving tho se reductions. The state has jurisdiction over mobile sources, and District auth ority to regulate emissions from vehicles is extremely limited. However, the Distr ict is addressing a significant proportion of emissions generated from mobile sourc es by providing incentive funding to reduce emissions. Additional measures t o reduce the impact of emissions from vehicles are outlined in the Distric t’s Ozone Attainment Plan, and include addressing the vehicle miles traveled throu gh an Employer Trip Reduction measure, among others, but we continue to rely on t he state and federal governments to do their part in reduction mobile em issions in the San Joaquin Valley.

2. Comment: Section 3 Definitions, pages 2201-1 and 2201-12. T here appears to be a typographical error in the numbering system beginni ng with the definition of Routine Replacement. It continues onto page 12 making the a pplication of the definition of SB 288 Major Modification unclear.

Response: The numbering system is correct. The “Major Modifi cation” definition, formerly 3.23, was renamed to “SB288 Major Modific ation” and moved to a new location under section 3.34. Routine Replacement w as renumbered to 3.33, formerly numbered 3.34. Although it may be difficu lt to see, the strikeout overlaps the number 4.

## APPENDIX B

Comments and Responses regarding the following rule s:

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Revie w Rule)

June 30, 2008 version

and

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)

July 29, 2008 versionSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 REVIE W 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 ruli ng on the special treatment of “clean units” under the NSR reform reg ulations, I don’t think this provision is still acceptable.

Response: We believe the commenter connected this “Clean Emis sions Unit” term with the federal NSR reforms, and determinations of “major modifications”. However, this section is NOT used in determining wh ether a project constitutes a federal major modification. This section actually predates the federal NSR reforms of 2002, and is used only in determining the quanti ty of offsets required by our rule. The District fully acknowledges that this rule’s of fsetting requirements do not match up on a one-to-one basis with the federal offsettin g requirements, and has added, with EPA’s concurrence, the Offset Equivalency Demo nstration of section 7 of this rule to demonstrate that our offsetting requirement s 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 su fficient 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 pr oject (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 51.16 5 , is not a federal major modification for that pollutant.

3. Comment: (Regarding 3.28) Should be reworded to delete ref erence 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 c reate a SIP reference problem.

Response: We agree (and in fact found the reference as curr ently worded to be an erroneous reference), and propose to reword as reco mmended by EPA, but add a reference to the definition of PM-10 in our “Defini tions” rule, Rule 1020:San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 diame ter smaller than or equal to a nominal ten microns, as defined in Rule 1020, Defin itions 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 b e 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 sour ces to ”net out” of BACT requirements, we propose to reword the section as follows to more fully reflect the District’s interpretation and implement ation of this section:

There is no increase in permitted emissions from th e Stationary Source replacement unit(s)

.

5. Comment: ( Regarding section 4.6.3, offset exemption) What ab out equipment registered under your new registration rule? Any N SR exemption should be provided here, not in rule 2250.

Response: Although we believe that exemption from all permi tting requirements for equipment registered under the District’s PEER prog ram is adequately covered in the permitting exemption in Rule 2020, we also beli eve that adding the following language provides consistency with the similar exem ptions for portable equipment and might avoid confusion in the future:

Portable equipment which is registered as such in a ccordance with the provisions of Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registr ation) or the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (California Code of Regulation Title 13, Article 5, Sections 2450-2465), or equipment re gistered in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2250 (Permit-Exempt Equipmen t 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 mak e 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 requirem ent to establish a difference in definition between the offset ratios required by federal extreme area requirements and our own, and so propose to continu e to call ours “Distance Offset Ratios.” In addition, the ratio for NOx and VOC me ets 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 Di strict

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 satisfacti on 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 occu rs only after notice in the federal register and proper public pr ocesses are completed. After additional discussion with EPA, we agreed to add th e following underlined phrase

The requirements of section 4.8.1 shall not apply i f the District demonstrates to the satisfaction of the federal Environmental Protectio n Agency that all major sources of NOx and VOC in the District are equipped with fe deral 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 ap ply 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 modifie d 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 definitio n of "major modification" in Rule 2201 sec 3.23 (essentially determined by th e 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 a n examination of these requirements reveals the positive impacts of this s uggestion:

4.1.3 BACT required for major modifications 4.13.1 Restricts the use of some ERCs for "major mo difications" 5.4.1 Public notice for major modifications

The most significant of these requirements is the B ACT requirement for major modifications. We have had a few projects where th e applicant is either making an innocuous change, such as changing the limestone in jection rate on a SO 2 CEM equipped coal-fired boiler, or a more significant c hange, like adding an SO 2 scrubber to three existing sour gas fired steam gen erators, where BACT was required only because the project constituted a maj or modification. There was no increase in emissions of any kind, on an actual or potential basis, and in fact thereSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 modificat ion.

Applications for such projects have been cancelled because the units are not equipped with current BACT for NOx or some other po llutant. When these projects are cancelled, the District loses the opportunity t o benefit from the reduced emissions (SOx in these cases) that the projects wo uld 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, a lmost 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 requ ires that we not relax any requirements due to NSR reform), we don't believe t hat we should impose this type of disincentive on more sources. Note that we are n ot 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 revi se the definition of "Federal Major Modification" in section 3.17 (essentially the diff erence between the projected actual emissions an the actual emissions) to de-link it f rom the definition of "Major Modification", and update the above-referenced sect ions so that “Federal Major Modifications” trigger BACT.

For existing units, in most cases, the major modifi cation calculation is more stringent than the Federal major modification calcu lation The major modification calculation for a group of modified emission units (without an increase in capacity) can easily result in a significant emission increas e whereas the Federal major modification calculation for the same group of modi fied 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 Federa l major modifications.

Response: We agree that we do not want to disincentivize chan ges that reduce actual emissions of air contaminants. However, we need to ensure that all federal requirements are met for extreme areas, so to imple ment 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 cu rrently proposed rule. In fact, we have also renamed the pre-December 31, 2002 vers ion of “Major Modification” as “SB 288 Major Modification” to eliminate any con fusion 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 Decem ber 19, 2002 (i.e. 50,000 lb/year for NOx and VOC), we do not believe that making thi s change will impose any newSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 majo r modification”. Such an “SB 288 major modification” would trigger Federal New Source Review requirements, as they existed on December 19, 2002 , due solely t o the magnitude of the calculated emission increase (i.e. 50,000 lb/year f or NOx and VOC).

For example, a project with a “SB 288 major modific ation” 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 strin gent than the definitions of “Major Source” and “Major Modification” that existed in ou r December 19, 2002 version of this rule, therefore SB 288 is not violated.

We then reviewed each section of our rule that refe renced 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 dir ectly references the federal definition of “Major Modification”. We kept langua ge 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 off setting 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 t o reclassify the Valley as an
extreme ozone nonattainment area under the 8-hour s tandard, but also the Valley’s 2004 reclassification to extreme nonattainment unde r the 1-hour standard. See 74 Fed. Reg. 20550, 20552 (April 16, 2004). While EPA attempted to avoid furtherSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 requireme nts 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 Re port 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 a nd 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 “extre me” NSR requirements currently apply in the San Joaquin Valley. At the time that the District was reclassified as extreme nonattainment under the 1-h our 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 Appen dix S at that time.

Appendix S has subsequently been updated to impleme nt the extreme nonattainment area requirements, but was clearly in tended to apply to the newer 8- hour ozone standard. In fact, the 1-hour ozone sta ndard 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 revo ked 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 provid e 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 prop er due process, and is clearly inappropriate.

Finally, it’s important to note that these rule mod ifications will implement the 1-hour extreme requirements as well as the 8-hour extreme requirements because they apply the same underlying FCAA requirements. There fore the issue is moot. We will either have this rule in effect at the time EP A reclassifies us as “extreme” nonattainment under the 8-hour standard, or we will implement Appendix S, thus directly implementing the appropriate federal requi rements.

10. Comment: This same issue regarding the application of Appe ndix 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 Appe ndix S thresholds for PM2.5.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 re commend that the District take this opportunity to amend Rule 2201 to reflect thes e newly applicable PM2.5 thresholds as well. (EJ)

Response: We agree that the Appendix S requirements applicabl e to PM 2.5 nonattainment areas currently apply in the San Joaq uin Valley, and we are implementing those requirements accordingly. Howev er, there is no immediate necessity to revise our rules – the deadline for in corporating 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 requirem ent implementation and we intend to wait for some answers before proceeding w ith 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. Se ction 2 should be revised to provide that it is applicable to incomplete applica tions to the extent the Administrator has provided timely notice of its incompleteness.

Section 5.1 requires the Administrator to notify th e 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 u nclear whether the application is deemed complete. Applicants should not be subject t o greater permit requirements because of the Administrator's failure to properly notify the applicants and provide them the opportunity to complete the application be fore the more stringent requirements go into effect. Section 5.1 should al so 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 6 5943, the District is required to determine if an application is complete or incomplete within 30 days. Furthermore, if the District does not respond withi n 30 days after receiving an application, California Government Code Section 659 43(b) states “the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapt er”. This will start the 180 day clock for the District to continue with its evaluat ion to issue the permit or authority to construct that must comply with local, state and fe deral requirements. Therefore, no change is necessary.

It is important to note here that determining an ap plications completeness under the California Government Code does not necessarily aff ect the applicability of federal rules and regulations. Federal rules are often spe cifically written to apply to pending applications, regardless of whether they are consid ered complete.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 (BA CT) (Section 3.9). The federal regulations define the lowest achievabl e 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 emissi on 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. § 51.16 5(a)(1)(xiii). We believe the use of “or” directs a broader consideration of similar sou rces than is implied by the District definition. Again we recommend that the District ei ther change this language or clarify that the intent of this language is the sam e as that in the federal regulations. (EJ)

Response: We appreciate the opportunity to reaffirm that th e intent of District rule language implementing BACT requirements, and it’s i mplementation by District staff, is completely consistent with, or more stringent th an, the federal regulations regarding LAER and BACT.

OFFSET RATIO

13. Comment: Offset Threshold (Section 4.7.2.1). It is time fo r the District to abandon this provision limiting the number of offsets requi red 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 appro ach 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 dr op 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 m odifications we currently expect will do one of the following:

• eliminate the equivalency demonstration and requir e offsetting requirements consistent with federal requirements,

• construct a market-based declining-cap emissions t rading system that can be demonstrated to be equivalent to federal requiremen ts, orSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 o perated 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 dead line to implement the “extreme” 8-hour requirements do not allow a complete explora tion 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 a pplying these requirements. In particular, we note that the Distr ict’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 offse t 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 requir ements 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 pro gram. This may mean that additional offsets will need to be retired in order to “balanc e the books” or that additional offsets or emission reductions will be required fro m sources. While we recognize the hardship that compliance may require, we also recog nize that the air pollution problems in the Valley will not be addressed if emi ssions 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 potentia l conflict with SB 288, section 7.1.1 should be revised to read “in 40 CFR 51.165 in effe ct on December 19, 2002.” As we have explained before, without this date, the nu mber of offsets required by the federal program used in the comparison will be smal ler 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 requirem ent through this incorporation of EPA’s NSR relaxations is the very type of backslidi ng that SB 288 intended to prevent. (EJ)

Response: As we have stated in the past, the federal EPA re quires that we demonstrate equivalency with current federal offset ting requirements, not those inSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 commen t would result in clear noncompliance with federal law.

In addition, no fewer offsets are required by our c urrent rule than the rule in effect on December 30, 2002. Similarly, no fewer offsets wil l 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 i ts 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 equi valency. So, such an interpretation would actually result in a relaxatio n when compared to the proposed requirements, certainly not a consequence that Eart hjustice anticipates.

OFFSET EXEMPTIONS

16. Comment: Section 4.6.9 should be revised to clarify that ag ricultural sources are exempt from emission offset requirements until the District allows agricultural sources to obtain credit for emission reductions. T he 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 poten tially affect new or expanding dairies. Some may incorrectly interpret the provisi on as requiring the District to ignore state law and require major agricultural sou rces to obtain offsets without any opportunity to obtain credit for emission reduction s.

Existing section 4.6.9 currently provides the follo wing exemption: Agricultural sources, to the extent provided by Cal ifornia Health & Safety Code, section 42301.18(c), except that nothing in this se ction shall circumvent the requirements of section 42301.16(a).

Section 42301.18(c) prohibits any district from req uiring agricultural sources to obtain offsets until agricultural source reductions meets the criteria for creditability. Pursuant to this statute, the District does not hav e 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 e mission, 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 a pprove the protocol for establishing the creditability of dairy or other ag ricultural 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& SAFET Y CODE 42301.18(c). Importantly, section 42301.18(c) applies to all agricultural sources, not just agricultural sources that are not federal major sou rces.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 r equires 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 emiss ion reduction credits to construct or modify major sources. The existing exemption at sec tion 4.6.9 should be more plainly stated in order to avoid confusion and pote ntial litigation...(GG)

Response: The District appreciates the opportunity to furth er clarify this very important issue. To state it as clearly as possibl e, the offset exemption of section 4.6.9 is NOT available to agricultural sources whic h 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 interpretat ion. 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 sec tion 42301.16(a) is to specifically require offsets of major sources of air contaminants, as t his was specifically necessary to fulfill the mandates of t he federal SIP call that the state was under at the time. Without this language specifica lly requiring offsets of major agricultural sources, the law would not have met EP A’s requirement that we subject major California agricultural sources to federal pe rmitting requirements, and EPA would not have been able to stop the SIP call and t he 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 anoth er 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 modif ication 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 cha nge in attainment status and major source definition in Rule 2201 on permitting requirements for existing dairies. (Staff Report, p.5, reference Rul e 2201 and Rule 2020, Section 6.20). With the change in the definition of major source threshold, the half a majorSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 & Sa fety 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 h alf a major source threshold. We understand that the District intends to drop the th reshold for Rule 4570 so that the same dairies will be subject to the same rule. Req uiring the dairies to obtain a permit sooner will only result in substantial paper work and expense without any meaningful impact on air quality. (GG)

Response: California Health and Safety Code 42301.16 requir es agricultural facilities with emissions over one-half the major s ource thresholds to obtain permits. The District cannot therefore implement commenter’s suggestion.

19. Comment: We also note that the language of section 42301.1 6(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) simpl y refers to major source threshold which means only non-fugitive emissions a re counted. Whereas 49724.6(c) expressly requires that fugitive emissio ns are included in the calculations. Despite past practices, the District should adhere to the statutory language. (GG)

Response: The District appreciates the opportunity to reite rate that, for the purposes of implementing CH&SC sections 40724.6(c) and 42301.16(c), all emissions, except for fugitive dust, must be includ ed in calculations to determine district permitting requirements based on one-half of the major source thresholds. The statutory language of these sections is consist ent, 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 off sets from dairies without allowing credit may have an impact on the e nvironment. 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 the ir operations, they generally want to include the most efficient, sanitary and en vironmentally sound and feasible measures for their operations. While such improveme nts 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 effic iency in reducing emissions. However, efficiencies in one unit of the dairy may not be creditable to offset theSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 Di strict requires emission offsets without allowing credit for reductions, dairy opera tors will be disincentivized from improving and modernizing their operations, potenti ally resulting in greater emissions.

Similarly, by requiring the purchase of offsets - w ithout the availability of credit for reductions - the District may be creating a signifi cant economic impediment that will prevent large dairies from modernizing their operat ions and taking on herds from less efficient operations potentially resulting in more emissions to the basin. Modifications at dairies are often undertaken or ma y be undertaken in the future to add additional capacity for herds that have been re located from another dairy, sometimes owned or acquired by the expanding dairy. The modifications for the major source expanding dairy are likely to have mor e 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 n ot subject to Rule 4570). The same result would be true for dairies (including th ose not subject to Rule 4570) that might otherwise shutdown in order to move their her d to another more modern and larger operation with greater emission controls. (G G)

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 Dis trict and the land-use agencies in the San Joaquin Valley have historically and app ropriately considered emission offsetting that is consistent with the requirements of the District’s NSR rule to be considered adequate and feasible mitigation of a pe rmitted source’s emissions. In other words, CEQA air impacts issues are generally thought to be satisfied by the permitting and offsetting requirements NSR, and the refore NSR offsetting requirements have been of significant benefit to so urces 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 requir ements.

We expect that those dairies that are subject to th e District’s NSR offsetting requirements because of these proposed revisions wi ll find that CEQA is somewhat easier to negotiate because of it.

In addition, we will continue to work diligently to wards a dairy emissions reduction banking protocol over the next several months, whic h protocol will be designed to recognize and allow banking of dairy emissions redu ctions that meet the specific ERC banking criteria. We look forward to the comme nter’s support as we proceed with that effort.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 defini tion of 'Fugitive Emissions' in Section 3.18 of the proposed rule by making it clear that s uch emissions are only included in calculations for determining a Major Modification o r 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 op ening. Emissions that are not vented through a stack but can reasonably be ca ptured and vented through a stack are not considered Fugitive. Fugiti ve 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 ident ified 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 r ules.

First, let me clarify our current and long-standing practice: we do not include fugitive emissions when determining whether a source is a ma jor source or a project is a major modification (of course, we do count fugitive s if the source is one of the “listed” source-types, and for the purposes of dete rmining whether a source is a major air toxics source). In the current version o f Rule 2201, this is captured in the definitions of “Major Source” and “Fugitive Emissio ns” (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 the se purposes appears to be in some flux. At the time of the workshop, you’ll reca ll that we asked the EPA representative her opinion, but she was not aware o f the status of EPA’s proposed rulemaking on this subject.

Therefore, rather than rewrite the definition of “F ugitive 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 CF R Part 51.165.” Both major modification definitions (3.17 and 3.34) point to v ersions of the 40 CFR Part 51.165, and Part 51.165 has, in the past, allowed the exclu sion of fugitive emissions from major modification calculations. However, we do in tend to follow EPA regulatorySan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 co nfirm that, for the purposes of “SB 288 major modification” and “federal major modifica tion” applicability, we will continue our practice of excluding fugitive emissio ns 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 redu ced NOx and VOC major modification thresholds will result in many m ore projects becoming subject to the Alternative Siting analysis provisions in Secti on 4.15.1 of the proposed rule. However, we are unclear as to how the affected proj ects will be evaluated under Section 4.15.1, and we are concerned that significa nt processing delays could be unnecessarily incurred.

It has come to our attention that the South Coast A ir Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) SIP-approved New Source Review Rule 1303 s tipulates that Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) based Alternative Siting analy sis requirements are met for projects that satisfy certain requirements for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, Part D (page 8) of Rule 1 303 contains the caveat that compliance with the alternative siting provisions i s satisfied through CEQA if any one of the following stipulations is met for a proj ect:

• The proposed project is exempt (statutory or categ orical exemption) from CEQA,

or

• The proposed project qualifies for a negative decl aration or mitigated negative declaration, or

• The proposed project has been analyzed by an envir onmental impact report (EIR).

We recommend that the above CEQA based exclusions s hould be applied in relation to projects that trigger the alternative s iting analysis requirements of Rule 2201. These provisions could be incorporated direct ly into Section 4.15.1 of the proposed rule, or promulgated through a District po licy. (CNAEP)

Response: The District intends to draft policy that will im plement similar methodology.

STATIONARY SOURCE DEFINITION

Comment : In the July 29, 2008 Draft Staff Report, the Dis trict responded to Aera's request to revise the definition of Stationary Sour ce contained in Section 3.37 ofSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict

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 represe nt backsliding of the New Source Review Rule. Aera believes the requested ch ange 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 a ny 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 s team generator to steam a light oil formation where it previously was used to steam a h eavy oil formation. Since heavy and light oil production would be one stationary so urce, 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 b e 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 t han with the current split of heavy and light oil production stationary sources.

This is because all of the production equipment wou ld be part of the same stationary source and any project to modify equipment would no t be split into separate projects representing changes at separate stationary sources . (AERA)

Response: Under SB288, specifically codified under CH&SC S ection 42504 (b)(2)(B), a district is not allowed to change its new source review rule that would allow exemption, relaxation, or reduce the obligati on of a stationary source “any requirements for best available control”. As state d 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 c hanges 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) 326-6985SJVUAPCD 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 federalSJVUAPCD 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 relaxSJVUAPCD 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 largelySJVUA 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 (Feder ally Enforceable Potential to Emit).

2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolut ion.

BACKGROUND :

The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Contro l District (District) is proposing to revise Rule 2201 (New and Modified Sta tionary Source Review Rule) and Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable P otential to Emit) to add permitting requirements based on our proposed “ extreme” nonattainment ozone designation.

Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Revie w Rule)

Rule 2201’s primary purpose is to provide a regulat ory mechanism for allowing continued economic growth while minimizing the amount of emission increases due to this growth. Rule 2201 a pplies to all new stationary sources and all modifications to existin g stationary sources that are subject to District permit requirements.SJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MOD IFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE P OTENTIAL 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 Dis trict 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 N SR applications;

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT): mandate s emission controls to minimize emission increases above de minimus values ;

• Emission offsets: requires emissions above specif ied offset threshold levels to be mitigated with either concurrent reductions or p ast 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 t hat result in emissions above specified levels.

Rule 2530 (Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit)
The primary purpose of Rule 2530 is to provide faci lities whose actual emissions are consistently low to employ mechanisms to avoid Titl e V permitting requirements. Facilities that maintain sufficient records to demonstrate tha t 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 l ess than the District’s Title V thresholds.

DISCUSSION :

Purpose of the Rule Revisions

On April 30, 2007, the District adopted the 2007 Oz one Plan for attainment of the federal 8-hour standard and requested the San Joaqu in Valley Air Basin be redesignated to “extreme”. The 2007 Ozone Plan was then submitted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to the federal Environmen tal Protection Agency (EPA) on November 17, 2007. The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA ) and implementing regulations require that 8-hour extreme nonattainment areas inc orporate certain requirements into their NSR rules. The District is proposing amendmen ts 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 re quirements.SJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MOD IFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE P OTENTIAL TO EMIT) December 18, 2008

3 Also as a result of the District’s 8-hour ozone ext reme 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, 2 008, the proposed amendments will be effective upon EPA approval. Regardless of the effective date of the Rules, federal regulations will require that the federal N SR 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 Repo rt, Appendix B, dated December 18,
2008.

It is important to note that implementing the requi rements 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 nec essary, since there was no 1-hour standard to base the requirements. But the Washing ton 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, th e NOx and VOC thresholds will each be changed from 50,000 pounds per year to 20,000 po unds per year.

Amendments to the federal major modification defini tion in Section 3.17 will change the significance thresholds in Table 3-1. The significa nce 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 capt ure 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 i n extreme ozone nonattainment areas, per 40 CFR 51.165(f)(1)(ii).

Section 4.8, the distance offsets ratio within 15 m iles 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 federalSJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MOD IFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE P OTENTIAL 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 t he 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), th e 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 lan guage 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 permitti ng based on actual emissions, and requires recordkeeping and reporting to maintain th e 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 majo r 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 emiss ion limitations of Section 6.1.1 would apply at 5 tons per year (50% of the new thre sholds). The quantity of emissions in Sections 5.4.2 and 6.2 have been changed to corr espond with 50% of the extreme NOx and VOC threshold levels.

Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Secti on 40728.5, the District is required to analyze the cost effectiveness of new rules that implement Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). The proposed amendment s do not add BARCT requirements and therefore are not subject to the c ost effectiveness analysis mandate.

Socioeconomic Impact Analysis:

State law requires the District to analyze the soci oeconomic impacts of any proposed rule amendment that significantly affects air quali ty 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 consis tency analysis of the draft rule is not required. The draft rule does not strengthen e mission limits or impose more stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping r equirements.

Environmental Impacts:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Ac t, staff investigated the possible environmental impacts of the proposed amendments. Because this rule does not relaxSJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MOD IFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE P OTENTIAL TO EMIT) December 18, 2008

5 any current NSR provisions, and possessing no evide nce to the contrary, District staff have concluded that the proposed amendments will no t 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 staf f requested public participation and input regarding legal and technical concerns for inclusio n 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 ru les 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 Joaq uin Valley counties, and mailed to affected sources and interested parties. The publi c notice solicited written comments to be submitted by mail, and identified the names and tel ephone 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 d ue 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 faci lities in the San Joaquin Valley. Approximately 500 additional agricultural sources o f air pollution will be required to obtain operating permits. The increased workload will inc lude an early surge due to the initial permitting requirements, starting late in the curre nt 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. Sim ilarly, the Compliance Department workload will increase. Title V operating permits require substantial recordkeeping and reporting, and more frequent inspections. Addition ally, newly permitted agricultural sources will require initial and ongoing inspection s. The permitting and compliance workload increases will be streamlined to the exten t possible, consistent with our continuous efforts to improve operating efficiency. Any additional staffing needs will be assessed as we implement the revised Rules, and wil l be addressed through staffing increases only after all possible streamlining has been implemented. Such staffing increases, if necessary, are unlikely to be fully i dentified at the time of the preparation of the District’s 2009-10 Budget, and therefore will l ikely take the form of a mid-year budget adjustment. However, the additional costs to the D istrict are expected to be largelySJVUAPCD Governing Board

ADOPT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2201 (NEW AND MOD IFIED STATIONARY SOURCE REVIEW RULE) AND RULE 2530 (FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE P OTENTIAL TO EMIT) December 18, 2008

6 recovered by the District’s existing fee regulation s, through both hourly processing fees and annual permit to operate renewal fees charged t o the recipients of these new permits. Therefore, no adjustment to the 2008-09 D istrict 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#