SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

FINAL STAFF REPORT:

PROPOSED RULE 1714 – PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION 

FOR GREENHOUSE GASES, AND PROPOSED

AMENDED REGULATIONS XXX – TITLE V 

PERMITS

October 2010

Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources

Deputy Executive Officer

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources

Elaine Chang, DrPH

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E.

Director of Strategic Initiatives

Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources

Jill Whynot

Author: Pamela Perryman, Air Quality Specialist

Reviewed by: Robert Pease, P.E. – Program Supervisor

Barbara Baird – District Counsel

Mohsen Nazemi, P.E. – Deputy Executive Officer, Engineering and Compliance
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: DR. WILLIAM A. BURKE

Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

Vice Chairman: DENNIS YATES

Mayor, Chino

Cities of San Bernardino

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Supervisor, Fifth District

County of Los Angeles

JOHN J. BENOIT

Supervisor, Fourth District

County of Riverside

MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI

Councilmember, South Pasadena

Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region

BILL CAMPBELL

Supervisor, Third District

County of Orange

JANE W. CARNEY

Senate Rules Appointee

JOSIE GONZALES

Supervisor, Fifth District

County of San Bernardino

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE

Mayor, Riverside

Cities of Riverside County

JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph. D.

Governor’s Appointee

JAN PERRY

Councilmember, Ninth District

City of Los Angeles

JUDITH MITCHELL

Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates

Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region

MIGUEL A. PULIDO

Mayor, Santa Ana

Cities of Orange County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................1

Regulatory Background ........................................................................................1

Public Process.........................................................................................................2

Purpose and Applicability.....................................................................................2

Legal Authority ......................................................................................................3

AQMP and Legal Mandates .................................................................................3

Affected Industry ...................................................................................................3

Summary of Proposed Rule Amendments...........................................................3

Emission Reductions..............................................................................................7

Comparative Analysis............................................................................................7

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).................................................8

Socioeconomic Assessment....................................................................................8

References...............................................................................................................9

Response to Comments........................................................................................10
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 1 October 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The District staff is proposing to amend Regulations XVII – Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD), and XXX – Title V Permits, to implement federally mandated 

requirements for greenhouse gases (GHG) for the PSD and Title V programs. These 

federal programs are implemented by the District through the enforcement of these two 

regulations. Regulation XVII amendments will incorporate federal requirements for 

GHGs by reference into a new rule, Rule 1714 – PSD for GHGs. Regulation XXX 

amendments would add federal GHG requirements into the current District rules.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

On June 3, 2010, U.S. EPA promulgated a “tailoring rule” to describe the applicability 

criteria that determine which existing or new stationary sources and which modification 

projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions under the PSD and 

Title V programs of the CAA. The District is presently implementing the PSD program 

under a Partial Delegation from U.S. EPA Region IX. The District implements its 

Regulation XVII – PSD to address attainment air pollutants. The District’s Regulation 

XVII is presently not approved by U.S. EPA into the SIP. Staff intends to incorporate the 

GHG provisions for the PSD program by reference by adopting a new rule. The District 

received approval of Title V as a permitting program for major sources November 21, 

2003 (68 FR 65637) and it is implemented through Regulation XXX. The District staff’s 

proposed amendments for Title V (Regulation XXX) retain the basic approach of the 

regulations and add GHGs to the structure.

Regulation XVII – PSD implements a federally mandated program that provides a preconstruction review and permitting authority for new major stationary sources and major 

modifications at existing major stationary sources for areas that are designated 

“attainment” or “unclassifiable” for a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

It works in tandem with “nonattainment” New Source Review (District Regulation XIII) 

for areas that are not in attainment for a NAAQS.

The South Coast Air Basin is classified “attainment” for carbon monoxide, nitrogen 

dioxide and sulfur dioxide. It is “nonattainment” for ozone, particulate matter (PM)2.5 and 

PM 10. The Salton Sea Air Basin is “unclassified” for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

sulfur dioxide, and PM2.5 and nonattainment for ozone and PM10. Both Basins have 

requested U.S. EPA to re-designate them as “attainment” for PM10 based on recent 

monitoring.

Title V is a federally enforceable program for permitting large sources in an inclusive 

format to assist in their compliance with provisions of the CAA.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 2 October 2010

U.S. EPA has defined GHGs as the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6). This is consistent with the six gases included in state programs, such 

as AB 32, and the District’s Regulation XXVII – Climate Change. These gases are 

compared using a term called “Carbon Dioxide Equivalent” (CO2e), which means the 

amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would have the same global warming potential as a 

given amount of another greenhouse gas. Global Warming Potential (GWP) means the 

capacity to heat the atmosphere, calculated as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative 

forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram (kg) of a substance relative to that of 

1 kg of CO2. GWPs are calculated according to the factors for a 100-year time horizon.

The U.S. EPA determined that without their rulemaking, PSD and Title V requirements 

would, as of January 2, 2011, apply to sources of GHGs with emissions of 100 tons per 

year (tpy), and PSD requirements would apply at levels of 100 tons per year or 250 ton

per year, depending on the source category, the threshold levels for criteria attainment 

pollutants under the CAA. This level of emissions for GHGs is considered extremely 

low and would greatly increase the number of sources requiring permits, impose undue 

costs on small sources, overwhelm the resources of permitting authorities, and severely 

impair the functioning of the PSD and Title V programs. For example, without the GHG 

tailoring provisions, there would be an estimated six million new Title V permits

nationwide, of which, the AQMD’s proportionate share could be 300,000 new permits 

(based on population size). This compares to approximately 500 current Title V permits.

The current U.S. EPA tailoring rule creates a phase-in process starting with the largest 

GHG emitters covered beginning January 2, 2011, and smaller emitters delayed entry into 

the programs until at least April 30, 2016.

PUBLIC PROCESS

A Public Workshop/CEQA Scoping Session was held September 9, 2010. 

Approximately 60 people attended and five comment letters were submitted after the 

workshop. A Public Consultation Meeting will be held October 12, 2010

PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY

The purpose of these rule amendments is to implement the federally promulgated 

requirements for GHG emissions in the PSD and Title V programs. PSD requirements 

are presently implemented through Regulation XVII and the GHG requirements will be 

adopted by reference and incorporated into Proposed Rule 1714. Title V requirements 

are presently implemented through Regulation XXX and the GHG requirements will be

incorporated through amendments to Rules 3000, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3005, 3006, and 

3008.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 3 October 2010

LEGAL AUTHORITY

The AQMD obtains authority to adopt, amend, or repeal rules and regulations which 

control air pollution from Health and Safety Code §§ 40000, 40001, 40440, 40725-

40728, 42300 et seq.

AQMP AND LEGAL MANDATES

The District is proposing Rule 1714 and amending rules in Regulation XXX – Title V 

Permits, to implement the federal requirements for GHGs. These rules are not control 

measures in the AQMP, but are mandatory requirements under the Clean Air Act. 

Proposed Rule 1714 – PSD for GHGs, will implement the GHG requirements by an 

adoption by reference of the federal requirements. The GHG requirements for Title V 

programs will be included in Regulation XXX by amending Rules 3000, 3001, 3002, 

3003, 3005, 3006, and 3008 of that regulation.

AFFECTED INDUSTRY

Staff has identified 55 existing facilities which may potentially be impacted by the Title 

V federal regulations. These facilities are primarily classified in the following industries: 

cement, cogeneration units, electric power generation, hydrogen plant, inorganic 

chemical manufacturing, and petroleum refineries. This information is based on GHG 

emissions reported to CARB for 2008. Please see the discussion below in “summary of 

proposed rule amendments” for specifics as to what the effective dates are and the 

threshold levels triggering inclusion. Staff is not able to estimate the facilities that may 

be subject to PSD.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS

The amendments to Regulations XVII – Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and 

XXX - Title V Permits, are proposed to implement federal changes to 40 CFR Parts 52 

and 70, published June 3, 2010 and effective August 2, 2010. The first step phase-in date 

is January 2, 2011, followed by a second step implementation date of July 1, 2011.

Regulation XVII – Prevention of Significant Deterioration

One new rule is proposed for Regulation XVII, Proposed Rule 1714 – PSD for GHGs, to 

adopt by reference the provisions related to GHGs from the federal PSD rule as 

delineated in 40 CFR Part 52.21. The rule specifies what portions of 40 CFR, Part 52.21 

do not apply to GHG emissions. These exclusions are as follows:

(a)(1) Plan disapproval - the provisions of this section are applicable to any SIP 

which has been disapproved with respect to PSD of air quality in any 

portion of any State where the existing air quality is better than the 

national ambient air quality standards. There is no air standard applicable 

for GHGs.

(b)(13) Definition of Baseline Concentration – pertains to increment 

consumption which has to do with criteria pollutants.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 4 October 2010

(b)(14) Major source baseline date – pertains to criteria attainment pollutants.

(b)(15) Definition of Baseline Area –pertains to criteria attainment pollutants.

(b)(55-58) Equipment Replacement Project (ERP) definitions struck down by the 

DC Circuit Court but not yet removed from the CFR.

(c) Ambient air increments - pertains to criteria attainment pollutants.

(d) Ambient air ceilings - pertains to criteria attainment pollutants.

(e) Restrictions on area classifications –restricts designation of certain Class I 

areas – pertains to criteria pollutants.

(f) Reserved

(g) Redesignation – pertains to re-designation of areas, which is not 

applicable to pollutants with no NAAQS.

(h) Stack heights - this has to do with modeling which does not apply to 

GHGs.

(i)(1)(i-v) Exemptions dealing with construction commenced in the 1977-

1980 range.

(i)(1)(ix-xi) Exemptions dealing with construction commenced in 1987.

(i)(6-8) Exemptions dealing with construction commenced in 1988.

(k) Source impact analysis – pertains to NAAQS thus it does not apply to 

GHGs.

(l) Air quality modeling – there is no NAAQS for GHGs and thus modeling

is not applicable to GHGs.

(m) Air quality analysis - pertains to criteria attainment pollutants.

(o) Additional impact analyses – GHG emissions are not a local impact issue.

(p) Sources impacting Federal Class I Areas - pertains to criteria attainment 

pollutants.

(q) Public participation – Not needed as District Rule 1714 contains public 

participation requirements.

(s) Environmental impact statements –This pertains to a federal agency 

preparing NEPA documents.

(t) Disputed permits or redesignations - pertains to criteria attainment 

pollutants.

(u) Delegation of authority – this applies to the U.S. EPA Administrator; the 

District is not delegating authority to anyone.

(v) Innovation control technology - this provision is optional, not a required 

element of a PSD program. Also, this section refers to 40 CFR Part 

124.10, which is not the standard for public notice when the rule is 

incorporated by reference.

(w) Permit rescission – pertains to rescinding permits

(x) Reserved

(y) Reserved

(z) Reserved

(aa) Actual plantwide applicability limitation (PALs) – the District does not 

have delegation of authority for PALs which are bubble plans (plantwide) 

for criteria pollutants, not applicable to GHGs. Not adopting this 

provision for GHGs makes the District’s program more stringent than the 

federal program because bubbles (PALs) add compliance flexibility.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 5 October 2010

(cc) ERP provisions struck down by DC Circuit Court but not yet removed 

from the CFR.

In general, the federal rules establish the dates for a phased-in multi-step process. 

Specifically, beginning January 2, 2011 (Step 1) any source already subject to the PSD 

regulation for new construction or a modification for any attainment pollutant, and 

having an increase in GHG emissions on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis 

(Global Warming Potential [GWP] applied) >75,000 tpy CO2e and with a net emission 

increase greater than zero of GHG emissions on a mass basis (no GWP applied), will be 

required to undergo assessment of BACT for GHG emissions. To clarify, GHG 

emissions calculated on a CO2e basis takes the sum of the six GHG specified above and 

weights them according to their GWP by multiplying each component by its GWP factor 

before summing them to make the total GHG emissions. If the calculation is done on a 

mass basis, no weighting is done and thus no GWP factor is applied. The emissions are 

the simple summation of all the GHG emissions. As a result, AQMD would begin 

requiring BACT, as applicable, for GHGs for these sources.

Step 2 of the phased-in implementation for GHG sources has an effective date of July 1, 

2011. At this point, all sources subject to the regulation through Step 1 will continue to 

be subject to the rule and additionally, sources with a potential to emit (PTE) GHGs 

>100,000 tpy CO2e and emitting GHGs or an NSR pollutant above the 100/250 tpy (mass 

based) statutory thresholds, will be subject to the regulation. Furthermore, on or after the 

July 1, 2011 date, modifications of a “major source”, including those determined to be a 

major source solely on the basis of GHG emissions, with a net emissions increase of 

GHGs of >75,000 CO2e (GWP applied), and a net increase in GHGs calculated on a mass 

basis (no GWP applied) equal to or exceeding 0 tpy, will be subject to the regulation. 

These facilities will be subject to BACT for GHGs. The U.S. EPA regulation also states 

that sources emitting <50,000 tpy CO2e would not be subject to the regulation until at 

least April 30, 2016. Additional federal rulemaking would be necessary to regulate such 

sources.

The federal rule defines GHGs as the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6). These gases are compared using a term called “Carbon Dioxide 

Equivalent” (CO2e), which means the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that would have 

the same global warming potential as a given amount of another greenhouse gas. Global

Warming Potential (GWP) means the capacity to heat the atmosphere, calculated as the 

ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram 

(kg) of a substance relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. GWPs are calculated according to the 

factors for a 100-year time horizon.

The regulation grants relief to sources emitting GHG, because the major source definition 

as it applies to attainment pollutants is either 100 or 250 tpy, depending on the source 

category. As stated above, if this threshold level was used for GHGs, it would greatly 

increase the number of sources requiring permits, impose undue costs on small sources, 

overwhelm the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impair the functioning to 
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 6 October 2010

the PSD and Title V programs. To be considered a “major source” based solely on GHG 

emissions, a GHG source must have the potential to emit GHGs in amounts of, or 

exceeding, 100 tpy for sources in any of the 28 major emitting facility source categories

listed under PSD CFR 40 Part 52; or 250 tpy for any other stationary source, calculated 

on a GHG mass basis (no GWP applied); and with the potential to emit GHGs of 

100,000 or more tpy CO2e.

PR 1714 also contains the same public participation requirements as the District enforces 

for all other sources regulated under Regulation XVII – PSD by Rule 1710 - Analysis, 

Notice and Reporting.

Regulation XXX – Title V Permits

Amendments to Regulation XXX are proposed for seven of the nine rules in the 

regulation. PAR 3000 – General, is proposed for amendment by adding three definitions: 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e); global warming potential (GWP); and greenhouse gas 

(GHG). One definition, Minor Permit Revision is proposed to be amended by adding a 

threshold value for GHGs. A table is also added listing the GHGs and their GWPs.

PAR 3001 – Applicability, contains language similar to that found in PAR 3002 

regarding the inclusion of sources with GHG emissions into the program. The proposal 

adds an exemption for sources with PTE GHGs less than 100,000 tpy CO2e and PTE less 

than the thresholds in Table 2 of this rule for all other air contaminants if the facility 

takes an enforceable condition in a permit or modifies the facility to such a level.

PAR 3002 – Requirements, is proposed to be amended by adding the January 2, 2011 and 

July 1, 2011, dates for including GHGs in Title V permits. The first date (Step 1) 

requires GHGs to be added to any permit that is being obtained or modified under Title V 

due to an attainment air contaminant. In other words, if a Title V permit is required for 

any attainment air contaminant, then applicable requirements for GHG emissions must be 

included in the permit. The July 1, 2011 date (Step 2) includes any source with a 

potential to emit (PTE) > 100,000 tpy CO2e (on a CO2e basis with GWPs applied) and a 

PTE GHGs > 100 tpy on a mass basis (no GWP applied). Language was presented in 

two options in paragraph (a)(3) regarding the GHG requirements to be presented in the 

Title V permit and whether they are “applicable” requirements and thus only those 

requirements under the federal CAA and the SIP; or “regulatory” requirements and thus 

in addition to applicable federal requirements would also include “state only” 

requirements, meaning requirements promulgated by state action only. Staff sought input 

on these two options through the public workshop process and after receiving several 

comments in support of Option 1, the proposed rule language reflects that only the 

federal or “applicable” requirements are to be included in the Title V permits. At present, 

there are no federal regulations that constitute “applicable requirements” for GHGs 

unless the source is subject to BACT for GHGs under PSD. Also, the proposed rule 

clarifies that on and after July 1, 2011, new or modified facilities with a PTE increase of 

> 100,000 tpy CO2e will be subject to Title V.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 7 October 2010

PAR 3003 – Applications, PAR 3005 – Permit Revisions, and PAR 3006 – Public 

Participation, are proposed for amendment only due to references in those rules to 

definitions in PAR 3000 – General, and the proposed changes in the numbering sequence 

in that proposed amended rule.

PAR 3008 – Potential to Emit Limitations, authorizes sources to cap their PTE to avoid 

applicability of Title V based on GHG emissions. The proposed amended rule reflects a 

clarification in the use of the term “annual” to reflect the current process of using 12-

month rolling basis for determining actual emissions. Also, the definition of De Minimis 

Facility is proposed for amendment by adding sources emitting less than 25,000 tpy CO2e

of GHGs. This level is chosen to reflect sources at the GHG emission level of 25,000 tpy 

CO2E needing to comply with mandatory reporting requirements. Also, PAR 3008 

subdivision (d) adds sources with the PTE GHGs less than 50,000 tpy CO2e level for PTE 

limitations.

Rule 3008 includes alternative recordkeeping provisions and operational limits for certain 

types of equipment. Staff believes equipment subject to the alternative limits would not 

trigger any of the current GHG thresholds. An emergency standby engine with output 

less than 1,000 brake horsepower (PAR 3008 (e)(2)(E)), and alternative operational limits 

for boilers (<100,000,000 Btu/hr) using < 71,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas consumed 

in a 12-month period (PAR 3008, Table 1) would have GHG emissions far below the 

50,000 tpy threshold level. For the engines, the amount of diesel combusted would be 

1,000 bhp x 0.05gal/bhp-hr x 200 hrs./yr (max operational time) = 10,000 gals/year and 

with a value of 10.21 kg CO2/gallon this yields 102 MT CO2e. For the boilers the 

71,000,000 square cubic feet natural gas equivalent is 3,834 MT CO2e.

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

While requiring BACT for GHGs may result in either smaller future increases or future 

reductions of GHGs (and/or possibly criteria pollutants) compared to the status quo, it is 

impossible to quantify such benefits at the present time. In fact, Federal BACT for 

GHGs has not currently been finalized. There is an U.S. EPA Climate Change Work 

Group developing recommendations for U.S. EPA regarding guidelines for GHG BACT. 

It is likely that BACT for GHG will include energy efficiency and combustion fuel 

efficiency, but the actual measures, as well as the attendant efficacy, is, at this time, 

speculative.

Further, the District’s CEQA process currently considers GHG emissions. This review 

requires owner and operators to quantify and address GHG emissions. The addition of 

these amendments to the CEQA process may not yield additional emission reductions.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2 requires a written analysis comparing the 

proposed amended rule with existing federal, State and District regulations. This analysis 

must include averaging provisions, operating parameters, work practice requirements, 
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 8 October 2010

and recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements associated with existing 

applicable rules and proposed regulations.

These rules encompass all sources and thus the statute should not be interpreted to require 

this agency to list all federal and state rules and regulations affecting these sources.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

SCAQMD staff has reviewed Proposed Rule 1714 and the proposed amendments to

Regulation XXX – Title V Permits, and determined them to be exempt from CEQA 

requirements pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15268 – Ministerial Projects. The 

proposed project is considered to be ministerially exempt because the proposed project is 

implementing federal requirements and the SCAQMD has not exercised discretion in 

adopting the proposed project. Upon adoption of the proposed amendments, a Notice of 

Exemption will be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15062 and filed with the 

county clerks in each county within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction and will be available at 

AQMD Headquarters, by calling the AQMD Public Information Center at (909) 396-

2039, or by accessing AQMD’s CEQA website at: www.aqmd.gov/ceqa.

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

PARegs XXVII and XXX represent an adoption of the federal Tailoring Rule for PSD by 

reference and Title V by incorporation of federal requirements in Regulation XXX rules. 

Since the proposed amendments do not impose requirements beyond the federal rules, 

Title V and PSD permit holders are not expected to face additional costs or other 

socioeconomic impacts as a result of the proposed amendments. As such, a 

socioeconomic assessment is not required.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 9 October 2010

REFERENCES

1. U.S. EPA 75FR 31514, Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, June 3, 2010.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 10 October 2010

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

___________________________________________________________________________
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 11 October 2010

The following comments were received during the public workshop held September 

9, 2010 and the comment period, which ended September 17, 2010. Unless noted, the 

comments and responses deal with PSD.

U.S. EPA and CARB

1. Comment: U.S. EPA and CARB both commented that there needs to be 

consistent definitions of CO2e, GHGs, and GWP for all Districts, EPA, and 

CARB.

Response: Comment noted. The District looks forward to receiving further 

input on this issue. At the time of the publication of this report, this work was not 

yet completed.

Delegation/Applicability

2. Comment: Currently, the AQMD has delegation for PSD on new sources. 

After January, will AQMD implement GHG provisions?

Response: Yes, under the proposed rules, if adopted.

3. Comment: It would be helpful for staff to develop a chart to indicate who has 

authority (federal vs. District) for what parts of PSD.

Response: Please see response to comment # 4.

4. Comment: What areas of PSD does the District have delegation over?

Response: The District currently has delegation for new major sources and for 

modified major sources if they go through the Regulation XVII calculation 

procedure and it is determined that PSD applies. The District does not have 

delegation for modified sources that use the method for calculating emissions 

increase set forth in the federal PSD regulation. The District does not have 

delegation for plantwide applicability limitation (PALs) or other modifications 

using NSR Reform calculation methodology.

5. Comment: Does SB 288 impact the GHG requirements?

Response: The state requirement, SB 288, prohibits backsliding on NSR 

programs that were adopted prior to 2002. This amendment will not be impacted 

by SB 288, as the current program does not apply to GHGs, so adding 

requirements for GHGs does not make the NSR program less stringent.

6. Comment: The adoption of 40 CFR Part 52.21 Subpart A in total is confusing 

in that so many paragraphs are not available to District permittees by action of SB 

288. It would be helpful for staff to create a table delineating which sections of 
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 12 October 2010

Part 52.21 are not applicable to the District by action of SB 288, irrespective of 

GHGs. In the same table, please delineate which of the remaining sections of Part 

52.21 apply to GHGs.

Response: Please see response to comment # 5. SB 288 does not apply to this 

amendment. Staff has listed the sections of Part 52.21 that do not apply to GHGs 

in PR 1714 and also in the staff report.

7. Comment: How will the District address Clean Units, PALs, Pollution Control 

Projects (PCP), and calculation procedures? At the Public Workshop, staff noted 

that PALs are a current option for some PSD permit applicants. However this 

option is only available if EPA issues the PSD permit. If a PSD permit applicant

wants to use PAL, can the applicant do so if Regulation XVII is made part of the 

SIP? What about if it is delegated? Or again, is the intention of the amendment 

to have no effect on pollutants other than GHG?

Response: The commentor is correct that the intention of the amendments is 

to have no effect on pollutants other than GHGs. PALs and PCPs will remain an 

option only if U.S. EPA issues the PSD permit.

8. Comment: There are unintentional consequences of adopting all of Part 52.21, 

perhaps limiting flexibility down the road. For instance, under section 52.21 (m), 

the absence of a national ambient air quality standard could cause the 

Administrator to require air quality monitoring data collected during the year 

prior to a permit application. This could potentially impact many projects with 

unclear delays.

Response: Section 52.21 (m) is excluded for GHG requirements in PR 1714.

9. Comment: Please provide a list of all the GHG applicable requirements 

known at this time in the staff report.

Response: Staff has drafted the rule to require 40 CFR Part 52.21 and listed 

the non-applicable portions. All portions excluded for GHGs are also listed in the 

staff report.

10. Comment: The language in PR 1714 is confusing. Subdivision (a) says all 

provisions of Rule XVII still apply to other attainment pollutants and that 

proposed rule applies only to GHGs. Then subdivision (b) says, “Adopt by 

reference the Code of Federal Regulations Part 52, Subpart A, section 52.21.” 

The definition of “attainment air contaminant” and “major source” in Rule 1702 

effectively require regulation of any new source with GHG emissions greater than 

either 250 or 100 tpy. The rule is silent as to applicability of modification 

permitting requirements to unlisted “regulated pollutants” including GHGs. We 

assume that the District intends to bring its rule into conformity with the 

applicability thresholds in the EPA Tailoring Rule. However, the language in PR
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 13 October 2010

1714 (b) does not refer to the amended GHG thresholds adopted in the Tailoring 

Rule but adopts Rule 52.21 in its entirety. This is confusing since section 52.21 

covers criteria pollutants and other regulated pollutants besides GHGs. We would 

appreciate clarification of the action and regulatory language proposed by the 

District to allow for the application of the EPA Tailoring Rule GHG threshold 

provisions in PSD permits issued by the District.

Response: Subdivisions (a) and (b) referenced by the commentor are both 

parts of PR 1714 and thus apply to GHGs and only GHGs. PR 1714 states: “This 

rule sets forth preconstruction review requirements for greenhouse gases (GHG).” 

The provisions of this rule apply only to GHGs as defined by U.S. EPA to mean 

the air pollutant as an aggregate group of six GHGs: carbon dioxide, nitrous 

oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. 

All other attainment air contaminants, as defined in Rule 1702 subdivision (a), 

shall be regulated for the purpose of PSD requirements pursuant to Regulation 

XVII, excluding Rule 1714.” Staff believes this language clearly delineates 

between GHGs which will be regulated under Proposed Rule 1714 and the other 

pollutants regulated in all other rules in Regulation XVII. PR 1714 does not refer

to the GHG threshold because it adopts those by reference in 40 CFR, Part 52.21 

which contains the GHG thresholds. As specified in PR 1714, the adoption by 

reference of the federal language only applies to GHGs. Definitions in Rule 1702 

are not applicable to GHGs, as no rule in Regulation XVII other than PR 1714 is 

applicable to GHGs.

11. Comment: EPA has recently solicited information on biogenic GHG 

emissions and whether or not a distinction should be made in the Tailoring Rule. 

Can the door be left open to include these provisions automatically in Regulation 

XVII (as opposed to undergoing new rulemaking) if EPA chooses to uphold the 

distinction between anthropogenic and biogenic emissions? This is particularly 

important with respect to Rule 3008.

Response: The District is adopting Part 52.21 by reference (excluding 

sections not pertaining to GHG emissions), so if U.S. EPA makes amendments to 

40 CFR Part 52.21 they would automatically be included in Rule 1714 – PSD for 

GHGs.

12. Comment: GHG emissions from bio-energy facilities should be excluded for 

purposes of evaluating PSD and Title V emission thresholds. The scientific and 

policy debate currently occurring over net carbon impact of biomass facilities 

largely stems from the wide variation in the types of feedstock utilized by such 

facilities. Urban green waste should be given a default assumption of carbon 

neutrality and the AQMD rulemaking should specifically incorporate this concept.

Response: The District is adopting the federal requirements as promulgated. 

The federal decision to handle bio-energy facilities or biomass differently has not 

been made at this time.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 14 October 2010

13. Comment: Outside of relief from the Environmental Appeals Board process, 

is there any other benefit of having Regulation XVII approved into the SIP? Are 

there any downsides like losing potential flexibility that comes with a delegated 

program?

Response: By adopting the federal requirements, the District becomes the 

permitting authority, instead of U.S. EPA. This reduces permit review time and 

improves communication. The commentor is correct that by approving these 

rules into the SIP the appeals to the Environmental Appeals Board would be 

avoided.

14. Comment: What options are available to the AQMD to apply the GHG 

thresholds under EPA’s Tailoring Rule to PSD permits? What are the benefits 

and drawbacks of obtaining full “SIP” approval versus EPA “Delegation”? If the 

District does not seek a SIP approved PSD program for GHGs, how would that 

affect PSD permitting for other pollutant.

Response: If the District does not adopt the federal requirements, permitting 

reverts to the U.S. EPA and the District may be subject to a SIP call or may apply 

to administer the U.S. EPA program under a delegation of authority from U.S. 

EPA. (Please also see response to comment # 13). The decision to incorporate 

GHGs into Regulation XVII should not impact PSD permitting for criteria 

pollutants.

15. Comment: Will EPA changes in the referenced CFR section automatically 

become effective, or will the changes require formal AQMD Board adoption and 

then EPA approval? Are there other issues associated with SIP approval?

Response: If the Board approves PR 1714 as proposed, the rule adopts the 

federal requirements by reference and thus subsequent changes will be 

implemented.

BACT and LAER

16. Comment: Current District PSD is more stringent than federal requirements 

with a 1 lb threshold and LAER in place of BACT. Will this impact GHG 

requirements?

Response: No, the District’s LAER requirement for criteria pollutants will not 

impact requirements for GHG BACT which will follow the federal definition of 

BACT and include consideration of cost and energy.

17. Comment: Regulation XVII will now deal with two different BACTs, one 

being California BACT or LAER, for criteria pollutants, while the other will be 
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 15 October 2010

traditional federal BACT for GHGs. This distinction should be made clear in the 

staff report.

Response: PR 1714 clearly states that rule is for GHGs and the other 

Regulation XVII rules are for other air contaminants. By adopting GHG 

provisions by referencing the Code of Federal Regulation, that definition of 

BACT is incorporated in PR 1714 for GHGs, while BACT is defined for other air 

contaminants in Rule 1702 – Definitions.

18. Comment: Please describe the difference between BACT and LAER.

Response: Under federal NSR for attainment and non-attainment air 

contaminants, Federal BACT or best available control technology generally 

applies to attainment pollutants and includes the consideration of such factors as 

energy and cost. LAER or lowest achievable emission rate generally applies to 

non-attainment air contaminants and is more stringent than BACT, and generally 

does not consider cost for emission limits that are achieved in practice.

19. Comment: How will federal BACT be determined?

Response: The District will follow federal guidelines on BACT for GHGs. 

There is a Climate Change Work Group currently developing recommendations to 

U.S. EPA regarding guidance on GHG BACT. Staff will closely follow this 

committee’s actions.

20. Comment: Are there any federal BACT requirements for GHGs?

Response: Currently, no. Please see response to comment # 19. Staff will 

follow this process and conduct working groups or consultation meeting to brief 

stakeholders, as appropriate.

21. Comment: With no BACT, LAER, or other method of GHG emission 

limitation or means of reduction, inclusion of GHGs in a Title V permit might 

mean virtually nothing except some kind of political statement

Response: After January 2, 2011, Title V permits may include BACT for 

GHGs, if applicable, under PSD actions, and may have PTE limitations to keep a 

facility out of PSD.

22. Comment: We understand that EPA may propose to use a “Top Down” BACT 

analysis, as currently required in the EPA-District PSD delegation agreement. 

What will be the role of energy efficiency in the new federal BACT for GHG and 

how will it be determined? Will a “Top Down” BACT analysis be used to ensure 

cost-effectiveness and technical feasibility including the assurance that control 

technologies have been demonstrated in practice are properly evaluated?
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 16 October 2010

Response: The U.S. EPA is currently developing guidelines for BACT 

determination for GHG. Energy efficiency is one of the topics being considered.

(Please see response to comment # 19.) For GHGs, staff has not altered the 

federal definition of BACT which currently considers cost and technical 

feasibility.

23. Comment: Traditional federal BACT for GHGs might focus on GHG 

reductions only and not be sensitive to the possibility of tension between criteria 

pollutants and GHGs. An example would be tightening up on boiler NOX

emissions which has the effect of lowering boiler efficiency (increasing CO2) if a 

combustion modification route is chosen. This is the reason the SCAQMD Board 

adopted the policy that if a health-based, criteria pollutant measure conflicts with 

GHG goals, the health-based standard will always trump the latter.

Response: Both the District and U.S. EPA are aware of this potential conflict 

and steps will be taken to minimize any impacts.

24. Comments: We have a concern regarding BACT which flows from discussions 

at the CAAAC BACT subgroup meetings where it was suggested that BACT 

determinations include a review of an entire facility, not just the subject permit 

unit, to determine efficiency improvements, energy conservation measures, etc. 

Please state clearly in the staff report, as staff stated at the recent workshop, that 

the BACT analysis will focus on the permit unit in question only and not the 

associated facility. Also clarify in the staff report and with EPA that any EPA 

BACT determinations will be filtered by the SCAQMD to make sure that they are 

consistent with the Board's policy paraphrased above.

Response: Federal BACT, as applied in PSD permits, is a case-by-case 

evaluation based on the new or modified permit unit(s) under consideration. 

There is a national clearing house for federal BACT.

25. Comment: Will federal BACT include fuel switching?

Response: The District will follow federal guidelines on BACT for GHGs and 

this has yet to be determined. Please see response to comments # 19 and # 20.

26. Comment: BACT should be solar energy. The Federal 30% investment tax 

credit expires in 2016 and along with the Federal Accelerated Cost Recovery 

System (depreciation in 5 years) makes solar renewable as BACT/LAER costeffective on a life cycle cost effective basis.

Response: Federal BACT has yet to be determined for GHGs. U.S. EPA has 

established a Climate Change Work Group to advise them on developing BACT 

guidelines for GHGs. The commentor has been given information on how to 

contact this entity regarding the determination of BACT and using solar energy as 

a solution.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 17 October 2010

27. Comment: The District should require LAER and solar conversion for new 

and retrofit technology.

Response: The District is adopting the federal requirements for GHGs for 

PSD and Title V as promulgated in the Federal Register June 3, 2010. The 

regulation requires BACT assessment for GHG sources, not LAER, which is 

more stringent (please see response to comment # 18). The District staff believes 

LAER is not appropriate for GHG emissions in part because of the potential 

conflict with LAER requirements for criteria pollutants.

28. Comment: How do we (you) ensure that we are not locked into BACT as the 

means to reduce GHG emissions when down the road Congress may take a 

different tact or EPA may choose another course? We have concerns with issues 

of backsliding.

Response: This is the current regulatory landscape. If requirements change in 

the future, SCAQMD would evaluate any new approaches.

Requirements

29. Comment: Please clarify your Option 1 and Option 2 in PAR 3001.

Response: Staff work-shopped the rules with two options, and asked for 

comments. Option 1 would place only federal and SIP requirements in the Title 

V permit (“applicable requirements”), and Option 2 would also include “state 

only” requirements or those implemented by state or local statute, so that all GHG 

requirements are in one permit.

30. Comment: Option 2 represents more work on the permitting staff than is 

warranted at this time. The AB 32 Scoping Plan at one time identified 76 

potential GHG – related control measures that could be developed by various state 

agencies. We recommend you revisit this issue in 2-3 years after the impacts of 

GHGs on PSD and Title V are fully appreciated.

Response: Option 1 is currently reflected in the proposed amended rules.

31. Comment: Multiple comments were received expressing preference for 

Option 1. No comments were received in support of Option 2.

Response: Please see response to comment # 30.

32. Comment: If the District is adopting the rules by reference and then sending 

them to the state and the state sending them to EPA, what is the projected timing 

and what happens if you fall short of the January 2, 2011 start date?
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 18 October 2010

Response: The rule will go to the AQMD Governing Board in November and 

be submitted to the state right away. U.S. EPA should be able to respond quickly, 

as the proposals are straight forward. The District will enforce the adopted rules 

regardless of the status of federal approval or work out another arrangement with 

U. S. EPA to be able to issue permits until U.S, EPA approves the rules into the 

SIP.

33. Comment: If a source triggers PSD on the basis of GHGs, will that trigger an 

analysis for criteria pollutants?

Response: Whether the facility triggers a criteria pollutant analysis when it 

triggers PSD for GHGs will depend on whether the facility exceeds the threshold 

for increase in criteria pollutants listed in Regulation XVII, not the entry threshold 

level of 100 tpy. The significant modification threshold for NOx, for example is 

an increase of >40 tpy. Thus, criteria pollutant analysis may occur where the 

source is not “major” for that pollutant.

34. Comment: Will other PSD requirements, such as modeling, be required for 

GHGs?

Response: The District does not envision implementing any additional 

requirements for GHG sources other than federal BACT and public notice. As 

explained in the staff report, many provisions of the PSD rule are inapplicable for 

GHGs.

35. Comment: The AQMD rulemaking should make clear that the only PSD 

requirement relevant in the context of GHGs is the BACT requirement.

Response: Please see response to comment # 34

36. Comment: There are memos regarding PTE for limiting criteria pollutants, are 

they applicable to GHG emissions?

Response: There is nothing official at this time, but the GHG thresholds are 

on the basis of PTE.

37. Comment: Basing requirements on PTE could bring in many facilities.

Response: PAR 3008 allows a source to take a cap on emissions that will fall 

below the threshold triggers for inclusion in Title V.

38. Comment: Taking a limit (cap) that would trigger a permit action to include 

the limit and then the source would incur monitoring/enforcement limits on the 

open permit.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 19 October 2010

Response: If a source takes a cap that means it was previously subject to the 

regulation. There may be monitoring and recordkeeping requirements if a cap is 

taken.

39. Comment: The GWP number the District uses for methane is 21. I have seen 

CARB use 25, this is also used by the United Nations group in their second and 

third assessments, and James Hansen uses 33.

Response: The GWP number the District uses in the rule (21) comes from the 

U.S. EPA and is found to be cited in PAR 3000 Table 1 as coming from the 

Federal Register, Volume 74, No. 209, October 31, 2009.

40. Comment: Is EPA going to open all Title V permits? If the District is 

considering opening permits with greater than 3-years renewal time, is that 3 

years from January 2, July 1, or permit issuance date?

Response: Beginning January 2nd, staff is required to reopen to add GHG 

“applicable requirements” to any Title V permit which has more than 3 years left 

if the life of the permit (since our Title V permits have a life of 5 years, which is 

usually counted from the date of issuance), based on the expiration date noted in 

each permit (usually 5 years from the date of issuance). At the Public Workshop 

staff pointed out that since the only federal requirement for existing GHG sources 

is the federal Mandatory Reporting Requirements and U.S. EPA has already 

declared that these are not considered “applicable” requirements, the District does 

not intend to reopen any Title V permits after January 2nd unless and until some 

future time when there are applicable requirements for existing GHG sources. 

However, PSD BACT requirements for GHGs will need to be included in a Title 

V permit, if applicable.

41. Comment: Where will GHG requirements be placed on the Title V permit?

Response: This has yet to be determined, but it will generally apply to 

emission units or devices listed in sections H and D of Title V permits.

42. Comment: Will you re-open Title V permits to incorporate GHG requirements 

and would it be for the whole facility or only the affect piece of equipment?

Response: Title V permits will only be revised or issued when PSD is 

triggered, unless and until U.S. EPA adopts further GHG “applicable 

requirements”. The GHG requirements would be only for the equipment subject 

to PSD due to a modification, not the entire facility. Please see responses to 

comments # 24 and #40.

43. Comment: If a permit is currently in the pipeline, but is issued after January 1, 

2011, would the new rules apply?
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 20 October 2010

Response: Yes, if the permit is not issued until after January 1, 2011 (for Step 

1) and June 30, 2011 (for Step 2), the implementation dates, the new applicable 

GHG provisions would apply.

44. Comment: PAR 3000 (b)(15)(vi) is not clear. Does it mean that any increase 

in GHG emissions would disqualify the facility from minor permit revision 

opportunities?

Response: No. The language has been re-phrased and re-structured to clarify 

that only sources emitting greater than 75,000 tpy CO2e would be disqualified 

from the minor permit revisions opportunity on the basis of GHG emissions.

45. Comment: PAR 3000 (b)(20) defines Potential to Emit and for GHGs there is 

no reliable information and data on different GHG emission factors prepared by 

different organizations. Based on definitions for Compliance Documents and De 

Minimis Significant Permit Revision, any facility has potential to emit GHG in 

the amounts exceeding the threshold numbers. Also, the reference to (b)(28) does 

not apply to GHGs.

Response: GHG emissions are currently being quantified and reported. Staff 

does not envision the proposed amendments affecting many sources. Paragraph 

(b)(28) is a definition regarding coal-fired power plants. GHGs are emitted from 

such sources.

46. Comment: PAR 3000 (b)(29)(c) definition of “responsible official” should 

add “or a designee” in the case of a public agency.

Response: Comment noted. This is existing rule language, so no change was 

made.

47. Comment: Please explain whether the requirements in PAR 3001 (c)(8) and 

(9) are applicable to facilities with existing Title V permits or to facilities that 

would apply for such permits. Who, and based on what data, determines whether 

the facility should be subject to GHGs triggering Title V? Will the facility be 

notified by AQMD or should it apply to such permit voluntarily?

Response: Applicants are responsible to obtain the appropriate permits. PAR 

3001 applies to both new and existing faculties.

48. Comment: What would a deviation report be? Would a deviation report be 

triggered for state requirements if they are listed on a Title V permit?

Response: Rule 3004 (a)(5) requires the operator to report any noncompliance situation. After considering input, staff is proposing that for GHGs, 

only “applicable” requirements (federal only) would be listed on Title V permits, 

so violations of state GHG requirements would not trigger a deviation report.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 21 October 2010

49. Comment: The uniform emission limitation of 100,000 tpy CO2e in PAR 

3008(d)(1)(D) for emission limitations does not make sense.

Response: The level has been revised to < 50,000 tpy CO2e for GHG 

emissions for the emissions limitation threshold.

50. Comment: The District should do more than the minimum federal 

requirements.

Response: The District’s proposal to implement the federal requirements for 

such a new area is a good place to start. Because federal BACT has not yet been 

determined it would be difficult to go beyond the federal requirements.

51. Comment: Delaying small sources until April 2016 is not acceptable.

Response: This decision was made by U.S. EPA and the District staff believes 

this decision is reasonable given the workload associated with lower thresholds 

compared to the benefits.

52. Comment: The lower level of GHGs that require PSD BACT analysis should 

be 100 tpy.

Response: U.S. EPA determined that lowering the GHG threshold to such a 

level would greatly increase the number of sources requiring permits, impose 

undue costs on small sources, overwhelm the resources of permitting authorities, 

and severely impair the functioning to the PSD and Title V programs. For 

example, based on PTE, an emergency diesel generator, of which there are 

approximately 9,000 in the Basin, could be a 100 tpy GHG emission source. The 

U.S. EPA has estimated that at the 100 ton threshold, there would be 6 million 

new Title V permits, nationwide, of which the AQMD could have to implement 

300,000 new permits.

53. Comment: The District is required to do an AQMP every 3 years. The 

District should have a solar conversion plan by the end of the year.

Response: The District is in the process of updating the AQMP due to be

released in 2011/2012. A solar conversion plan is beyond the scope of this 

project, but this comment will be referred to the planning staff.

54. Comment: The proposal to regulate GHG emissions under existing PSD and 

Title V programs is highly controversial and uncertain. The federal proposal is 

the subject of pending litigation, and the possibility of Congressional intervention 

in the matter is not at all remote. If the AQMD moves forward with rulemaking 

in light of the uncertainty, it must make accommodation for future changes to the 

regulatory landscape. If approved, the proposed revisions to Regulations XVII 
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 22 October 2010

and XXX should be automatically and immediately suspended in the event they 

are no longer federally mandated.

Response: The litigation of the federal actions is speculative and as such the 

District will move forward with the proposal to adopt the federal requirements as 

the required implementation date for Step 1 is January 2, 2011. If there is a 

change, staff will address the issue when it arises.

55. Comment: We understand the severe time constrains you are meeting. Still, 

the one week time for digesting the material and commenting on such a serious 

matter is not enough. If you cannot extend the comment period, perhaps you 

could divide the proposed rules into those subject to January 2, 2011 compliance 

date and others.

Response: The draft rules and staff report for Regulation XXX were available 

one week before the Public Workshop. Staff realizes the comment period after 

the PWS was limited and is one of the reasons why staff has scheduled a Public 

Consultation Meeting for October 12, 2010. The idea of splitting amendments in 

not practical since the rule development process takes at least six months and this 

is the time period between the compliance dates.

CEQA and Socio-economic

56. Comment: It is assumed that the federal government did an NEPA analysis 

and socio-economic analysis since the District is not.

Response: The District is adopting federal requirements and thus will publish 

an NOE determining them to be exempt from CEQA requirements pursuant to 

State CEQA Guidelines §15268 – Ministerial Projects. NEPA does not apply to 

actions under the Clean Air Act. U.S. EPA conducted a regulatory impact 

analysis and determined that absent the tailoring rule, small sources would be 

impacted and that by raising the threshold this rule would result in a cost savings.

57. Comment: The District should do a CEQA document with a socioeconomic 

impact analysis or a separate socioeconomic analysis document.

Response: The District performs CEQA and socioeconomic analyses 

separately. The CEQA document to be prepared after the Public Hearing will be 

a Notice of Exemption. Please see response to comment # 56.

PARegs XXVII and XXX represent an adoption of the federal Tailoring Rule for 

PSD by reference and Title V by incorporation of federal requirements in the 

Regulation XXX rules. Since the proposed amendments do not impose 

requirements beyond the federal rule, Title V and PSD permit holders are not 

expected to face additional costs or other socioeconomic impacts as a result of the 

proposed amendments. As such, a socioeconomic assessment is not required.
PR 1714 & PAReg. XXX Final Staff Report

SCAQMD 23 October 2010

The following comments were received following the close of comments 

(September 17, 2010) for the public workshop held September 9, 2010.

58. Comment: The proposed language in PAR 3001 (c)(9) states such facilities 

“shall apply for a Title V permit within 180 days after July 1, 2011, unless a Title 

V permit has already been applied for and all requirements that are applicable 

requirements (as defined in Rule 3000 (b)(4)) shall be included in the permit.” 

The proposed language that discusses how GHG requirements shall be included in 

the permit should be moved to Rule 3004.

Response: The language the commentor is referring to has been removed.

59. Comment: The proposed amendments to Rule 3000 continue to rely on the 

term “regulatory requirements” set forth in existing paragraph (b)(25); however 

this definition is ambiguous. The Title V permitting scheme is intended to ensure 

compliance with all “applicable requirements”.

Response: The language pertaining to GHGs specifically calls out “applicable 

requirements”, in PAR 3001 ( c)(8) and PAR 3002 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Also, please 

see response to comment # 30.