VENTURA COUNTY APCD 

STAFF REPORT 

Rule 26.13, New Source Review – Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

FINAL – October 2015 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

(District) is proposing revisions to District Rule 

26.13, New Source Review – Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). Rule 26.13 was 

adopted on June 28, 2011 in order for the District to 

assume responsibility for PSD permitting in Ventura

County from the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA). The rule adopted in 

2011 was based on a model rule provided by the 

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 

(CAPCOA). During its review of Rule 26.13 as a 

proposed revision to the Ventura County portion of 

the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

USEPA determined Rule 26.13 was deficient and 

requested some clarifying changes. 

Staff is proposing to add the language requested by

USEPA to Rule 26.13 along with additional minor 

editorial changes. If the revised rule is adopted as 

proposed, USEPA will add the revised Rule 26.13 to 

the SIP and allow the District to fully assume 

responsibility for PSD permitting. 

The changes requested by USEPA can be 

summarized as the following: 

1. Removing unnecessary clarifications regarding 

the term “federally enforceable” 

2. Clarification of the section noting where the 

term “administrator” refers to the USEPA 

administrator and where it refers to the District 

Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) 

3. Addition of time limits for the APCO to 

determine if a PSD application is complete and 

requirements for notification of USEPA 

4. Addition of an option for permitting electric 

power generation projects through the 

California Energy Commission Determination 

of Compliance process 

5. Expanded and clarified public participation 

requirements. 

Rule 26.13 with the proposed revisions will again 

adopt the provisions of the current version of 40 CFR 

Part 52.21, the federal PSD regulation, by reference. 

On August 19, 2015 a direct final rule by USEPA was

published in the Federal Register. This rule deleted 

sections of the federal PSD and Title V permit rules 

which had been vacated by the United States Supreme

Court’s action on June 23, 2014. This action allowed 

the Rule 26.13 amendments to proceed since the 

Code of Federal Regulations no longer has the 

vacated provisions. 

A new major PSD source or significant modification 

to an existing major source of a PSD pollutant will

require a PSD permit regardless of the issuing 

agency. 

The proposed changes will not directly affect the cost 

of compliance for regulated sources. However, if the 

proposed amendments are adopted, USEPA will 

delegate PSD permitting authority to the District. As 

a result, the cost for applicants might increase since 

the District applies the Rule 42 permit fees and 

USEPA does not charge fees for PSD permits. 

However, any PSD permit issued by USEPA would 

also require a District Authority to Construct and be 

subject to associated fees. 

Staff estimates the cost of a PSD permit could range 

from $50,000 to $200,000 depending on the 

complexity of the project. A significant portion of 

the fees would be applicable due to the District 

Authority to Construct regardless of which agency 

issues the PSD permit. If the District is delegated 

PSD authority, the Rule 42 fees will also apply to air 

quality modeling performed by the District instead of 

USEPA. This could result in a significant increase in 

fees. 

These amendments will allow the District to integrate 

all requirements in a single permit. If these 

amendments are adopted, a permit applicant will 

submit a single application to the District and will no 

longer be required to submit a separate application to 

USEPA. This streamlines the permitting process and

will likely be beneficial to the regulated community. 

The addition of strict time limits for completeness

determinations and permit decision notifications will 

provide guarantees of timely service to applicants. 

This could actually produce a cost savings due to 

fewer delays in the District’s permitting actions as 

compared to the USEPA PSD permitting actions. 

This report contains five sections: (1) Background, 

(2) Proposed Rule Revisions, (3) Comparison of 

Proposed Rule Requirements with Other Air 

Pollution Control Requirements, (4) Impact of the 

Proposed Rule, and (5) Environmental Impacts of 

Methods of Compliance. The first section provides 

background information including regulatory history
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 2 

and source description. The second section explains 

the key features of the proposed revisions. The third 

section compares the proposed requirements with 

existing federal requirements and BACT. The fourth

section is an analysis of the proposed amendment's 

effect on emissions, cost-effectiveness, and 

socioeconomic impacts. The last section examines 

the possible environmental impacts of compliance 

methods and mitigation of those impacts. 

BACKGROUND 

Introduction 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) is a 

federal pre-construction permitting program for 

facilities located in areas that either comply with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

for specified pollutants (classified as attainment) or 

are unclassifiable for specific pollutants. PSD applies 

to new major stationary sources and existing major 

stationary sources where a significant modification is 

proposed. The counterpart of PSD in federal 

permitting is the Non-attainment New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for major sources of pollutants 

located in areas that are not in attainment of the 

NAAQS for specific pollutants. 

The purpose of the PSD program is to protect air 

quality that meets clean air standards while allowing 

economic growth. The central provision of PSD is 

the requirement that new major sources and 

significant modifications of existing major sources be 

equipped with Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) for all PSD pollutants. This, along with 

other aspects of the PSD program, prevents violations 

of the NAAQS; protects the air quality in areas of 

special natural, recreational, scenic or historic value; 

and ensures the public is informed and has an 

opportunity to comment on PSD permitting actions. 

PSD Applicability

The PSD program applies to any new facility that will 

have "major" and "significant" amounts of air 

pollution for any criteria pollutant in an area 

classified as attainment for that pollutant. It also 

applies to any existing facility that plans to modify its 

operations such that the modification leads to 

increases of air pollution that will be "major" or, if 

the plant is already a major source, "significant."

"Major" means emitting or having the potential to 

emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any criteria 

pollutant for the specific source categories listed in 

the PSD regulations. There are 28 listed source 

categories, which include power plants that use steam 

to generate electricity, Portland cement plants and

chemical processing plants. If a plant does not fall 

into one of the listed source categories, then a 

threshold of 250 tpy applies. "Significant" refers to 

thresholds assigned to each criteria pollutant and 

certain non-criteria pollutants as listed in Table 1. 

On December 7, 2009, the USEPA Administrator 

signed the greenhouse gas (GHG) “endangerment” 

and “cause or contribute” findings. These actions set 

in motion regulation of GHG as a PSD pollutant. On

May 13, 2010 USEPA issued a final rule setting the 

major source and significant modification thresholds 

for GHG. In April of 2011 the District’s board 

approved amendments to several rules to address 

GHG as a regulated pollutant. 

On June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United 

States (SCOTUS) vacated the USEPA rules treating 

GHG as a regulated pollutant for the purpose of 

determining if a project is a major source or 

significant modification subject to PSD. In addition, 

the SCOTUS ruled the USEPA may continue to 

require BACT for GHG sources already subject to 

PSD due to emissions of other PSD pollutants. 

Rule 26.13 with the proposed revisions will adopt the 

provisions of the September 1, 2015 version of 40 

CFR Section 52.21, the federal PSD regulation, by 

reference. On August 19, 2015 a direct final rule by 

USEPA was published in the Federal Register. This 

rule deleted sections of the federal PSD and Title V 

permit rules which had been vacated by the United 

States Supreme Court. This action allowed the Rule

26.13 amendments to proceed since the Code of 

Federal Regulations no longer has the vacated 

provisions. 

As a result of the changes to the federal rules, a 

project will no longer be subject to PSD permitting

solely due to GHG emissions exceeding 100,000 tons 

per year. However, if a project is subject to PSD due 

to other pollutants, BACT will apply to GHG 

emissions if the source has the potential to emit GHG 

in excess of 75,000 tons per year. USEPA noted in 

its rulemaking documentation it intends to further 

revise the PSD regulations in a separate rulemaking

to fully implement the SCOTUS judgment. 

Ventura County is currently classified as attainment 

for all criteria pollutants except ozone. Since ozone 
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 3 

is a secondary pollutant (i.e. ozone forms in the 

atmosphere due to the reactions of other pollutants), 

NSR permitting applies to sources of the ozone 

precursors nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive 

organic compounds (ROC). Even though Ventura 

County is classified as attainment for nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), the requirements of both PSD and 

nonattainment NSR apply to sources of NO2 since 

NO2 is a precursor to ozone. PSD also applies to the 

other criteria pollutants, specifically particulate

matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, carbon 

monoxide and lead. In addition, PSD applies to 

significant increases of other pollutants at existing 

major sources as shown in Table 1. 

Rule History 

District Rule 26.13, New Source Review – 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, was adopted 

in June of 2011. At that time, the rule was prepared 

based on a model rule provided by USEPA and 

CAPCOA. The final staff report associated with the

original rule adoption proceedings contains details of 

the intention and justification for the original rule 

requirements. The adopted rule was submitted to the 

Air Resources Board (ARB) for inclusion in the 

Ventura County portion of the California SIP on 

August 4, 2011. ARB submitted the rule to USEPA 

on August 23, 2011 as part of a package of SIP 

amendments. USEPA has not issued a formal action 

on the rule as of the date of this report. 

USEPA communicated directly with the District 

regarding deficiencies in Rule 26.13. USEPA made a

request for specific changes in the rule language by 

providing an edited copy of the rule using 

strikeout/underline format. The USEPA indicated the 

requested changes resulted from further review of the 

model rule, including the need to maintain 

consistency with 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for 

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans) and rulings in court cases. 

The proposed amendments to Rule 26.13 are exactly 

those requested by USEPA, updated based on the 

June 23, 2014 SCOTUS decision as implemented by 

the US District Court of Appeals and discussions with 

USEPA staff. Additional minor editorial changes are 

included in the proposed amendments as discussed 

below. 

Table 1 

Pollutant Significant Emissions Increase Rates for 

Major Modifications in 40 CFR Part 52.21 (b)(23) 

Pollutant Significant Emissions Increase 

Carbon monoxide 100 tons per year (tpy) 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 40 tpy 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 40 tpy 

Particulate matter 25 tpy 

PM10 15 tpy 

PM2.5 10 tpy of direct PM2.5 emissions, also 40 tpy 

of SO2 or NOx emissions 

Ozone 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds or NOx 

Lead 0.6 tpy 

Fluorides 3 tpy 

Sulfuric acid mist 7 tpy 

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 10 tpy 

Total reduced sulfur (including H2S) 10 tpy 

Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S) 10 tpy 

Municipal waste combustor organics (measured 

as total tetra-through octa-chlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and dibenzofurans) 3.5 x 10-6 tpy 

Municipal waste combustor metals (measured as 

particulate matter) 15 tpy 

Municipal waste combustor acid gases (measured 

as sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride) 40 tpy 

Municipal solid waste landfills emissions 

(measured as nonmethane organic compounds) 50 tpy 
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 4 

PROPOSED RULE REVISIONS 

The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

(District) is proposing revisions to District Rule 

26.13, New Source Review – Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration. The proposed revisions 

were requested by USEPA during review of the 

original rule for incorporation in the SIP. The 

revisions requested by USEPA and proposed for 

adoption are discussed below by rule section. Staff is 

proposing no changes to sections A and B of Rule 

26.13. 

Section C. Incorporation by Reference 

In the initial sentence in Section C, staff proposes to 

replace the date “August 2, 2010” with the date 

“September 1, 2015” (the date staff confirmed the 

direct final rule changes by EPA were reflected in the 

electronic Code of Federal Regulations). This date

was chosen to ensure the incorporated version of the 

Code of Federal Regulations will contain the text of 

the referenced rule after it is updated based on recent 

court rulings. 

Staff is proposing to delete existing subsection C.2 in 

its entirety, thereby removing changes to definitions 

in 40 CFR Section 52.21 relating to potential to emit 

and allowable emissions. The deleted subsection 

merely removed the “federally” qualifier from 

discussion of enforceable limits so it will not 

significantly impact the rule requirements. USEPA 

requested this change based on advice from attorneys 

that the term “federally enforceable” is appropriate. 

Staff proposes the following changes to the text of

existing Subsection C.3, renumbered to Subsection 

C.2. The initial sentence will be deleted and replaced 

with “Unless otherwise defined below, the terms used 

in this rule are defined in 40 CFR Part 52.21.” In

revised Subsection C.2.a.1, the term “federal” is 

replaced with “USEPA” to clarify the administrator is 

the USEPA administrator rather than another federal

administrator, since the term administrator is not 

defined in 40 CFR Part 52.21. Note that the USEPA 

requested “federal” be changed to “EPA” but staff 

changed it to “USEPA” to avoid confusion with the 

California EPA. 

Staff is proposing changes to existing Subsection 

C.3.b to revise the public notice procedures. It will 

be renumbered to Subsection C.3 because it does not

address a defined term but rather modifies language

in the federal rule. Staff is adding section (l)(2) to the 

sections of 40 CFR 52.21 modified by this 

subsection. In addition, the reference to Rule 26.7, 

New Source Review – Notification has been replaced 

with a reference to Rule 26.13 Section E. Although

not requested by USEPA, staff added quotation marks

around the text after the colon to properly define the 

revision to the section of 40 CFR Section 52.21. 

These changes effectively redirect the public 

notification requirements to newly added 

requirements in Rule 26.13 Section E. 

Section D. Requirements 

Staff is proposing to add four new subsections, D.4, 

D.5, D.6, and D.7 to Rule 26.13. The edited rule 

provided by USEPA added these sections numbered 

D.4 and D.5 in the proposed amendments as D.1 and 

D.2, renumbering the existing sections. Staff 

determined the order of the sections was not 

important and simplified the changes by adding the 

new subsections as D.4 and D.5. Staff corrected the 

wording in subsection D.1 so the term is correctly 

stated as “Plantwide Applicability Limitation.” Staff 

also corrected a typographical error in Section D.2, so 

the word “notwithstanding” is now spelled correctly. 

No changes were made to subsection D.3. 

New subsection D.4 requires notification of the 

USEPA administrator within 30 days of receipt of a 

PSD permit application. The notice must also be sent 

at least 60 days prior to any public hearing regarding 

the application. This revision was requested to 

maintain consistency with 40 CFR Section 51.166(p).

New subsection D.5 describes requirements for the 

District to determine whether a PSD application is 

complete and notification of the application status to 

the applicant. This section specifies the date of

receipt of the application as the date on which the

District receives all information necessary to 

determine the application is complete. This revision 

was requested to maintain consistency with 40 CFR 

Section 51.166(q)(1). 

New subsection D.6 excludes GHG emissions from 

source impact analysis (modeling and increment) and

pre-application air quality analysis (local area 

monitoring) requirements in 40 CFR Sections 

52.21(k) and 52.21(m). This exclusion was requested 

by USEPA because GHG do not have localized 

health effects and are not regulated in the same 

manner as criteria pollutants. As with the adoption by 

reference date, the exclusion indicates the 

requirements of the specified sections in effect on

September 1, 2015 do not apply. 

New subsection D.7 provides an option for the 

District if a power plant regulated by the California 

Energy Commission applies for a PSD permit through 

the Notice of Intention and Application for 
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 5 

Certification process. Subsection D.7 allows the 

District to implement PSD requirements through the 

Determination of Compliance for such a project 

rather than an Authority to Construct or a separate

PSD permit. 

 

Section E. Public Participation 

The original text of this section indicates the District 

will comply with public notice requirements in Rule

26.7. USEPA requested removal of this reference 

and addition of specific public participation 

requirements. The revisions in Section E were 

requested to maintain consistency with 40 CFR 

Section 51.166(q). 

Staff is proposing to delete the current text of Rule 

26.13 Section E. The proposed text of Section E 

states “Prior to issuing a federal PSD permit pursuant 

to this rule and within one year after receipt of a

complete application, the Air Pollution Control 

Officer shall:” followed by eight subsections. 

The new subsections of Section E include specific 

requirements for a preliminary determination whether 

the permit will be approved or not, and public 

availability of the application and supplementary 

materials. Public notification in a newspaper and 

direct notification of USEPA and other interested 

parties (with a list of suggested agencies and 

individuals) are also required. Subsection E.5 

requires the District to provide an opportunity for a 

public hearing if the APCO believes it is warranted. 

In addition, the revisions require consideration of all 

written comments and comments provided during any 

public hearing, and public availability of such 

comments and the District’s response. The District

must make a final determination to approve or 

disapprove the project, notify the applicant in writing 

of the decision, and make the decision available to the 

public at the same location as the initial public 

information availability. 

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED RULE REQUIREMENTS 

WITH OTHER AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS 

California Health and Safety Code Section 

40727.2(a) requires Districts to compare the 

requirements of a proposed revised rule with other air 

pollution control requirements. These other air 

pollution control requirements include federal New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS), federal 

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS), Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), and any other District rule that

applies to the same equipment. 

The proposed revisions do not include or affect 

emission control standards; therefore, the 

requirements of Health and Safety Code § 40727.2(a)

are satisfied pursuant to Health and Safety 

Code § 40727.2(g). Nevertheless, the PSD program 

requires the implementation of BACT. It is not 

possible to determine the nature of the BACT 

requirement until a project is evaluated. However, a 

PSD project may also need BACT under District 

Rule 26.2 for ROC, NOx, PM10 and/or SOx. Rule 

26.2 BACT may be more stringent than PSD BACT 

as these BACT requirements have different 

definitions. 

Note also that the PSD program is implemented 

pursuant to federal law. A new major source or a 

significant modification to an existing major source 

of a PSD pollutant will require a PSD permit 

regardless of the identity of the issuing agency. 

IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED RULE 

Emissions Impacts 

Staff analysis of the emission inventory database and 

permitted emissions shows five existing major 

sources of PSD pollutants in Ventura County (see 

Table 2). Rule 26.13 will apply to any of these 

sources if they propose a modification that will cause 

a significant net increase in a PSD pollutant as listed 

in Table 1. In addition, any existing or new facility 

with a project that will be a major source of a PSD

pollutant by itself must obtain a PSD permit. The 

significance level for PSD review will not change as a 

result of the proposed amendments. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

Health and Safety Code § 40703 states that air 

districts must consider, and make public, “the costeffectiveness of a control measure.” The proposed 

amendments to Rule 26.13 do not impose or modify a 

control measure, so a cost-effectiveness analysis is 

not necessary. 
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 6 

The proposed amendments to Rule 26.13 will 

facilitate delegation of PSD permitting responsibility 

from USEPA to the District. As a result, any new 

PSD projects will be subject to District permitting

fees resulting in an increase in cost for the source (the 

USEPA PSD program does not impose fees on the 

applicant). In addition, the District might experience 

a cost increase to implement the PSD program. The 

permit fees charged by the District will cover the cost 

of PSD permit review and issuance. It should be 

noted that no PSD permits have been issued by the 

District in the history of the program. 

If a PSD project is proposed in the District after 

adoption of the rule amendments, the BACT analysis 

required by the PSD program might result in reduced

emissions from the source. However, as stated above, 

these requirements are in place regardless of the 

identity of the permitting authority and Rule 26 

BACT will apply as well. In addition, it is not 

possible to determine the quantity of emissions 

reductions until an application is received. Therefore, 

the cost-effectiveness of the proposal cannot be 

calculated. 

Table 2 

Existing Major Sources of PSD Pollutants 

Facility Name and ID Number 

PSD Major 

Pollutants 

SIC 

Code* Industry Description 

Mandalay Generating Station (00013) NO2, CO 4911 Electricity Generation 

Procter & Gamble Paper Products (00015) CO 2676 Sanitary Paper Products Manufacturing 

Aera Energy LLC (00041) CO 1311 Crude Oil Production 

Ormond Beach Generating Station (00065) NO2, CO, PM 4911 Electricity Generation 

Crimson Pipeline, L.P. (00385) CO 4612 Crude Petroleum Pipelines 

* Standard Industrial Classification Code 

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 

Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6(a) requires 

air agencies to identify one or more potential control 

options, assess the cost-effectiveness of those options, 

and calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness. 

Health and Safety Code Section 40920.6 also requires 

an assessment of the incremental cost-effectiveness

for proposed regulations for ozone, carbon monoxide

(CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

and their precursors. 

Incremental cost-effectiveness is defined as the 

difference in control costs divided by the difference 

in emission reductions between two potential control 

options achieving the same emission reduction goal 

of a regulation. The proposed amendments to Rule 

26.13 do not specify control options and may not 

require emission reductions. Therefore, the 

incremental cost-effectiveness analysis does not apply 

to the proposed rule amendments. 

Socioeconomic Analysis 

Assembly Bill 2061 (Polanco), which became 

effective January 1, 1992, requires that the District’s 

governing board consider the socioeconomic impacts 

of any new rule or rule revision. The Board must 

therefore evaluate the following socioeconomic 

information on proposed amendments to Rule 26.13. 

(1) The type of business, including small business,

affected by the rule or regulation. 

 The adoption of amendments to this rule will 

most likely affect the five existing permitted 

major sources of PSD pollutants in the county, 

since the emission threshold for PSD 

applicability is lower for existing major sources. 

These include electricity generation, crude oil 

production, crude oil pipelines, landfills, crop 

preparation services, wastewater treatment, and 

sanitary paper product manufacturing 

operations. 

Major source construction projects are generally 

associated with large industrial facilities so 

small businesses are unlikely to be affected. 

There is a known project in preliminary 

consideration stages, a 300 MW power 

generation facility requested by the Public 

Utilities Commission, that might be a PSD 

source for CO and NO2. None of the companies 

involved in the proposal process are small 

businesses. 

(2) The impact of the rule amendments on 

employment and the economy of the region. 

 Revisions to this rule are not expected to have a 

negative impact on either employment or the 

economy of Ventura County. A new major 

source or significant modification to an existing 
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 7 

major source of a PSD pollutant will require a 

PSD permit regardless of the issuing agency. 

Any new PSD source will likely be in an 

industry familiar with PSD regulations. 

(3) The range of probable costs, including costs to

industry or business, including small business, 

of the rule or regulation. 

 The District proposes to charge for PSD permit 

processing as specified in Rule 42. Because of 

the modeling required, actual labor hours 

required to process a PSD permit could be 

significant but difficult to estimate. Also, costs

could vary considerably depending on the level 

of participation by both the public and USEPA. 

The current hourly service rate for an Air 

Quality Engineer is $120.00 per hour. Staff 

estimates that, depending on the complexity, the 

cost of a PSD permit could be from $15,000 to 

$150,000. 

(4) The availability and cost-effectiveness of 

alternatives to the rule or regulation being 

proposed or amended. 

 The PSD program is implemented pursuant to 

federal law. A new major source or significant 

modification to an existing major source of a 

PSD pollutant will require a PSD permit 

regardless of the issuing agency. No 

alternatives exist. 

 (5) The emission reduction potential of the rule or 

regulation. 

 A new major source or significant modification 

to an existing major source of a PSD pollutant 

will require a PSD permit regardless of the 

issuing agency. Therefore, adoption of the 

proposed amendments to Rule 26.13 will not 

affect emissions. 

(6) The necessity of adopting, amending, or 

repealing the rule or regulation to attain state 

and federal ambient air standards pursuant to 

Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 40910). 

 Since the PSD program is in effect and will not 

change due to the change in the issuing agency, 

the proposed rule amendments will not impact 

attainment of air quality standards. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF METHODS OF COMPLIANCE

California Public Resources Code Section 21159 

requires the District perform an environmental 

analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of 

compliance if the proposed rule requires “the 

installation of pollution control equipment, or 

[specifies] a performance standard or treatment 

requirement...” 

The Proposed rule amendments are administrative in 

nature but may involve a requirement to install air

pollution control equipment. It is not possible to

determine the nature of the control equipment until

the project is proposed and evaluated. In addition, 

the controls required will not change due to the 

change in the issuing agency that will result from the 

proposed amendments. Therefore, an analysis is not

possible. 

CEQA Requirements 

Staff concludes that the adoption of the proposed 

amendments to Rule 26.13 is within the scope of the

categorical exemptions from the CEQA under CEQA 

Guideline sections15307, Protection of Natural 

Resources, and 15308, Protection of Environment, 

and that no exceptions to these categorical 

exemptions apply. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND COMMENTS

Public Workshop 

Due to the administrative nature of the proposed rule 

amendments, District staff and management 

determined a public workshop was not warranted. 

The initial opportunity for public input was during the 

public notice process for the Advisory Committee 

meeting. 

 

Advisory Committee 

On June 12, 2014 staff received comments from 

USEPA on the proposed revisions to Rule 26.13 

provided to EPA in advance of the Advisory 

Committee meeting. USEPA stated two of the 

revisions in their original request were no longer 
Staff Report Rule 26.13 Revisions 10/15 FINAL Page 8 

necessary because USEPA had made the changes in 

the CFR as required by court decisions. 

Subsection 52.21(k)(2) has been revised by USEPA 

to the text “Reserved” so there is no longer any need 

to add subsection (k)(2) to the list of excluded 

sections. In addition, USEPA has revised subsection 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to read “PM2.5 – 0 μg/m3

”. This 

makes the revision originally requested by USEPA 

and included in the initial proposed revisions to Rule 

26.13 as subsection C.3 unnecessary. Staff made the 

changes suggested by USEPA. 

The proposed revisions presented to the Advisory 

Committee included the changes made based on 

USEPA’s comments. After a presentation regarding 

the proposed revisions to Rule 26.13 and some 

discussion, the Advisory Committee voted 

unanimously to recommend adoption of the proposed 

revisions to the Air Pollution Control Board. 

Two changes were made to the rule text after the 

Advisory Committee meeting on June 24, 2014. Staff

removed the revision to the language in 40 CFR 

Section 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) requested by USEPA and 

originally included as subsection C.2. This provision 

was intended to remove the provisions of the USEPA 

Deferral Rule which temporarily excluded biogenic 

CO2 emissions from regulation. However, the 

Deferral Rule expired on its own terms on July 21, 

2014 so the text was no longer required in Rule 

26.13. In addition, the specific date of the Code of 

Federal Regulations version of 40 CFR Section 52.21

to be adopted by reference was updated to September

1, 2015 to ensure it included the court-mandated 

changes. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND REFERENCES

Acknowledgements 

Ventura County APCD, Proposed New Rule 26.13, New Source Review – Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Final Staff Report, April 27, 2011. 

Yannayon, L., USEPA Region 9, (2014, April 22). Telephone interview. 

References 

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). 

Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 45 ELR 20072, No. 09-1322 et al., (D.C. Cir., 04/10/2015). 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated 

Elements, 80 Fed. Reg. 160 (19 August 2015), 50199, 50203 (amending 40 C.F.R. § 52.21). 

40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (2015 effective Sept. 1).