June 11,2015

Mr. Gerardo Rios

USEPA Region IX

BAY A R F A 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail Code: AIR-3

San Francisco, CA 94105

AIR Q~ALITY

MAN AG EM E NT Subject: EPA Approvability of BAAQMD Permitting Rules

DISTRICT

Dear Mr. Rios,

ALA ~AB~I~NTY This letter is to address the following issues as they pertain to major facilities, prior

Margaret Fujioka to EPA making its formal determination to approve or disapprove our revised

Scott Haggerty Regulation 2 Permitting Rules that were adopted by our Board of Directors on Dec.

19, 2012. These issues were raised for discussion during our meeting on April 28,

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2015, at the District’s offices.

David Hudson

Karen Mitchoff Construction-Related Activities Requiring an NSR Permit: The District’s

Mark Ross Regulation 2, Rule 1, Section 301 (Reg. 2-1 -301) requires an Authority to

MARIN COUNTY Construct before an owner/operator “...puts in place, builds, erects, installs,

Katie Rice modifies, modernizes, alters or replaces...” a source of air emissions. A question

NAPA COUNTY has been raised regarding whether an applicant can undertake certain preparatory

Brad Wagenknecht or preliminary construction-related activities under this language before receiving

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY its Authority to Construct for a project. In particular, a question has been raised as

John Avalos to whether the District will allow physical on-site construction activities of a source

Ed~n MM Lee or emissions unit that are of a permanent nature. The federal NSR program

(Vice-Chair) implemented by EPA does not allow such permanent construction activities to

SAN MATEO COUNTY begin prior to receipt of an NSR permit. To the extent that the District allows such

David J. Canepa construction before receipt of the Authority to Construct (i.e., NSR permit), that

Carole Groom would be less stringent than the minimum federal NSR requirements.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY This letter is to confirm that the District will not allow any physical on-site

Cinyavez construction-related activities of a permanent nature under District Regulation 2-1-

(Secretary) 301. In particular, the District will not allow any of the following specific activities

prior to receipt of the Authority to Construct for a project:

SOLANO COUNTY Prohibited pre-construction activities:

James Spering • Installation of building supports and foundations;

SONOMA COUNTY . Paving

Teresa Barrett

Shirlee Zane . Laying of underground pipe work;

. Construction of permanent storage;

Jack P. Broadbent • Other activity of a similar permanent nature.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERIAPCO Implementing Regulation 2-1-301 in this manner will ensure that the District’s NSR

program is at least as stringent as the minimum federal NSR requirements.

The District will implement this interpretation of Regulation 2-1-301 starting

immediately. The District will also develop an Engineering Division policy

memorandum, which will be posted on the District’s website, in order to ensure this

939 ELLIS STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 • 415.771.6000 . www.baaqmd.gov
Mr. Gerardo Rios June 11,2015

Page 2

interpretation is followed by District permitting staff and is understood by the

regulated community.

Clean Air Act 110(I) Analysis: As agreed in our meeting, we have enclosed two

documents pertaining to the 110(l) analysis that we conducted as part of the rule

development efforts for the Regulation 2 revisions. The CAA 110(l) Analysis

document is also available on the District website, along with other documents

pertaining to the Regulation 2 revisions, at:

http:I/www. baagmd.qov/Divisions/Engineer-inq/Proposed-Reg-2-Changes.as~x

We appreciate EPA staff’s willingness to work with us to resolve these potential

approvability issues prior to making their official determination. We look forward to

continuing to work with you to address any additional deficiencies.

Very truly yours,

Jim Karas, P.E.

Director of Engineering

JK:gas

Enclosures: Analysis of Compliance with 4OCFR Section 51.160 (a) & (b); and

CAA Section 110(I) Analysis of BAAQMD Permit Exemption Provisions in

Regulation 2, Rule I

cc: Laura Yannayon, US EPA Region IX
BAY AREA

AIR Q~AUTY

_______ MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT

ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH

40 C.F.R. SECTION 5 1.160(A) & (B)

BY

CAROL LEE, SENIOR AIR QUALITY ENGINEER

REVIEWED BY

BRENDA CABRAL, SUPERVISING AIR QUALITY ENGINEER

AUGUST 2012
Table of Co ents

Preventing Violations of Control Strategy 3

Preventing Interference with Attainment or Maintenance of NAAQS 3

Ozone 3

PM10 and PM25~ 5

NO2~ 7

SO2~ 8

CO~

Lead’ 10
Analysis of Compliance with 40 C.F.R. §~ 160(a)&(b)

40 C.F.R. Sections 160(a) and 160(b) require that the SIP must include provisions that will

prevent permitted sources from (1) violating any portion of the region’s Control Strategy and

(2) interfering with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. Section 160(a) requires that the

SIP have provisions for the District to determine whether any such source will cause such a

violation or interference; and Section 160(b) requires that the SIP have provisions for the APCO

to deny a permit for a source that will cause such a violation or interference. These

requirements apply to the entirety of the District’s NSR program, not just the “Major NSR”

elements that are subject to 40 C.F.R. Sections 165 (for non-attainment pollutants) and 166 (for

attainment/unclassified pollutants). The District’s NSR program under the Proposed

Amendments will fully satisfy these requirements, as explained below.

reventng Violations of Control Strategy:

The District’s review of permit applications under its NSR program will ensure that no new or

modified source (of any size) will violate any portion of the District’s Control Strategy. The

District’s permit review process — applicable to all Authorities to Construct for all new and

modified sources at all facilities regardless of size — involves a thorough review all applicable air

quality regulatory requirements to ensure that the new/modified source will comply. If this

review shows that there will be a violation of any such requirement (which includes all

elements of the District’s control strategy under the SIP), then the District will deny the permit.

This denial authority is set forth in Regulation 2-1-304 (Denial, Failure To Comply With

Applicable Requirements).

Preventing n erfe e ce with Attainment o Maintenance of NAA S:

The District’s NSR review requirements will also ensure that no new or modified sources for

which NSR permits are issued will interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS.

Several aspects of the District’s NSR program combine to ensure this result. The discussion

below addresses each of the NAAQS in turn.

Ozone:

EPA’s current NAAQS for ozone is 75 ppm, averaged over 8 hours. The Bay Area is currently

designated as non-attainment of this standard. To address this situation, the Bay Area 2010

Clean Air Plan (CAP)1 provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and

protect public health. The 2010 CAP has been prepared in close collaboration with the Air

‘Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, September 15, 2010.

3
District’s regional agency partners, and has been informed by extensive outreach to the public

and interested stakeholders.

Ozone is not emitted directly from pollution sources. Instead, ozone is formed in the

atmosphere through complex chemical reactions in the presence of sunlight between two types

of precursor chemicals: hydrocarbons, often referred to as “reactive organic gases” (ROG), and

nitrogen oxides (NOx). Ozone is also a regional pollutant. Emissions of ROG and NOx

throughout the Bay Area contribute to ozone formation. Because emissions in one part of the

region can impact air quality miles away, efforts to reduce ozone levels focus on reducing

emissions of ROG and NOx throughout the region.

There are literally millions of sources of ozone precursors in the Bay Area, including industrial

and commercial facilities, motor vehièles, and consumer products such as household cleaners

and paints. Even trees and plants produce ozone precursors. The main sources of ROG

emissions in the Bay Area are motor vehicles and evaporation of solvents, fuels and other

petroleum products. The main sources of NOx are motor vehicles and combustion at industrial

and other facilities. The Bay Area annual average emission inventory for ozone precursors, ROG

and NOX is presented in Table 2-3 in Volume I of the 2010 CAP2.

The inventory and projections are based upon CARB EMFAC 2007, Version 2.3 and reflects the

effect of regulations adopted as of December 31, 2006. The inventories do not include

additional emissions reductions from State or federal measures adopted since 2007 or CARB’s

“Pavley regulations” to reduce greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.

Stationary

Sources*

Grand Total

Emissions

* Stationary Sources include: lndustrial/Corhmercial Processes, Other Industrial/Commercial Processes,

Combustion — Stationary Sources, Burning of Waste Materials, Banked Emissions, and Alternate Compliance

Allowance. Banked Emissions are current emission reduction credits in the District’s emission banking program

that may be used in the future to offset future emission increases. Alternate Compliance Allowance are surplus

emissions, voluntarily, reduced, available for alternative compliance with BARCT requirements of selected rules, as

prescribed by State Law and BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 9.

The District’s CAP allow for a certain amount of growth in stationary sources (i.e., sources

permitted by the District under its NSR program). Furthermore, per Regulation 2-2-302, ROG

and NOx offsets will be required for facilities with increases over 10 TPY, and any increase at all

for facilities above this threshold, which is far lower than what is required under the federal

CAA. There is not yet a PSD modeling methodology for ozone. Hence, there is no proposal to

2 BAAQMD Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, September 15, 2010.

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)

4
model ozone for minor sources. However, the thresholds for public noticing will ensure a

“backstop” requirement for those applications with significant increases in emissions of ROG

and NOx. Issuing minor NSR permits for new and modified sources will not interfere with

attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.

PM10 and PM2.s:

EPA has established three NAAQS for particulate matter: a 150 ~tg/m3 24-hour-average

standard for PM10; and a 35 ~..tg/m3 24-hour-average standard and a 15 ~ig/m3 annual average

standard for PM25.

The measured ambient air quality in the Bay Area is currently in compliance with all PM NAAQS.

The Bay Area is administratively designated by EPA as being in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS

and the annual-average PM2.5 NAAQS. From our monitoring network, the District’s monitoring

network has detected the following concentrations of PM10 in the Bay Area:

2008: Maximum 24-hr: 77 ug/m3; Maximum annual average: 24.1 ug/m33

2009: Maximum 24-hr: 55 ug/m3; Maximum annual average: 20.4 ug/m34

2010: Maximum 24-hr: 70 ug/m3; Maximum annual average: 21.0 ug/m35

Hence, for PM10 the maximum 24-hr concentration is 51% of standard, while the maximum

annual concentration is 17% of standard.

The Bay Area is currently designated by EPA as being non-attainment for the 24-hour average

PM2.5 NAAQS, but an analysis of monitoring data over the past few years shows that as a factual

matter 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations have been below the standard. The District has

developed a comprehensive emissions inventory and report of the PM in the Bay Area6. The

purpose of the report is to (1) fulfill federal air quality planning requirements for PM2.5, and (2)

guide the Air District’s long-term efforts to analyze and reduce PM emissions and population

exposure to PM in the Bay Area.

The breakdown of primary PM2.5 emissions by source category differs for the winter PM2.5

inventory compared to the annual inventory. The key difference is that PM2.5 emissions from

residential fuel combustion account for 38% of the winter inventory versus 24% in the case of

the annual inventory. PM2.5 emissions from residential fuel combustion, which is dominated

by wood-burning in fireplaces and wood stoves, are 65% higher (an additional 7 tons per day) in

the winter months than the annual emissions for this category. However, emissions from

~ BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2008.

~ BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2009.

~ BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2010.

~ BAAQMD Particulate Matter: Understanding PM to Protect Public Health in the Bay Area, August 2012.

5
several source categories are lower in winter. For example, winter emissions from off-road

equipment, as well as from the industrial sector, are lower than annual average emissions due

to reduced activity during the winter months. Accidental fires and geological dust emissions

are also lower in the winter than the annual average. Overall, however, winter-time PM2.5

emissions are 4% higher (an additional 2 tons per day) than annual-average emissions. The

relationship between annual PM1O and winter PM1O is similar to that for PM2.5. The main

difference is that emissions for residential fuel combustion (primarily wood-burning) increase

from 11% of the annual PM1O inventory to 18% of the winter PM1O inventory, while emissions

from accidental fires (primarily wildfires) decrease from 5% of the annual PM1O inventory to 1%

of the winter PM1O inventory.

Annual average emissions of primary PM2.5 have decreased from an estimated 87 tons per day,

as reported in the 2010 CAP, to 47 tons per day, a decline of 46%. The revised inventory

includes significant reductions in several major source categories, such as residential woodburning, commercial cooking, off-road vehicles (“Other Mobile Sources”), and road dust

(included in “Geological dust”). This decrease in the inventory is based in part on real emission

reductions due to factors such as turnover in the vehicle fleet and the impact of new

regulations that had not been accounted for in previous emission factors. However, changes in

methodologies used to estimate emissions also account for a significant portion of the decrease

in the inventory. The estimated emissions provided in the inventory7 are based upon data from

source tests, published emission factors, and engineering calculations. Emission inventories are

revised and improved on a regular basis. The current PM inventory7 differs significantly from

the inventory provided in the 2010 CAP. This is due to the fact that, since the release of the

2010 CAP, ARB and Air District staff reviewed and improved the methodologies used to

estimate emissions from several of the most important PM source categories, as explained

below.

Future emissions projections for primary PM and PM precursors are based on estimated future

trends in population growth and household formation, land use, economic activity, and motor

vehicle travel. The projected inventory includes anticipated emission reductions from turnover

in the motor vehicle fleet (whereby older, dirtier vehicles are replaced by newer, cleaner

vehicles), and well as ARB and Air District regulations that have already been adopted.

Implementation of ARB regulations on mobile sources is typically phased in, so the entire

benefit of these adopted regulations will not be realized until they have been fully

implemented over the next 10-15 years. At that point, emissions are projected to slowly

increase in response to population and economic growth, if no additional regulations are

adopted.

~ BAAQMD Particulate Matter: Understanding PM to Protect Public Health in the Bay Area, August 2012.

6
Stationary

Sources*

Grand Total

Emissions

* Stationary Sources include: Industrial/Commercial Processes, Other Industrial/Commercial Processes,

Combustion — Stationary Sources, Burning of Waste Materials, Banked Emissions, and Alternate Compliance

Allowance. Banked Emissions are current emission reduction credits in the District’s emission banking program

that may be used in the future to offset future emission increases. Alternate Compliance Allowance are surplus

emissions, voluntarily reduced, available for alternative compliance with BARCT requirements of selected rules, as

prescribed by State Law and BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 9.

Overall, the projected inventory shows little change in total emissions of primary PM2.5 and

primary PM1O from 2010 through 2030, based on the (unlikely) assumption that no future

regulations or policies are adopted to further reduce emissions. As such, the projected

emissions represent a “business as usual” scenario as to future emission levels. PM emissions

from sources under District jurisdiction are projected to increase at a rate of around 1% per

year based on previous observed growth and regulations adopted to date.

As with ozone above, the District is projecting an overall a decline in winter-time PM2.5

emissions (with a slight up-tick in 2030), which is expected to keep the Bay Area below the

NAAQS. The District has also projected a certain amount of growth in stationary

sources/industrial sources. Again, the slight up-tick in 2030 does not include the unlikely

assumption that no future regulations or policies are adopted to further reduce emissions. In

addition, for major sources, offsets for increases of PM10 and PM2.5 will be required. The

thresholds for modeling and public noticing will ensure a “backstop” requirement to perform

air quality modeling and public noticing for those applications with significant increases in

emissions. Issuing minor NSR permits for new and modified sources will not interfere with

attainment and maintenance of the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS.

NOz:

EPA’s current NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide is 0.1 ppm on an hourly basis and 0.053 ppm

averaged over an annual average. The Bay Area is currently designated as in attainment of the

annual average standard and unclassified for the hourly standard. To attain this hourly

standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at

each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). The

latest inventory for NO2 (2008) is 449 tons per day and 163,890 tons per year8. Only 13%

comes from stationary sources (combustion), while 87% of the inventory is from motor

vehicles8. The District has reviewed application data9 and determined that if all increases from

8 BAAQMD Base Year 2008 Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report, May 2011.

7
plants less than 40 tons were added together for each year for years 1991 to 2011 that the

averaged, annual total NO2 increase is 227 tons per year and ranges from 34 to 557 tons per

year, which is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the total inventory. From our monitoring network, the

District’s monitoring network has detected the following concentrations of NO2 in the Bay Area:

2008: Maximum 1-hr: 0.080 ppm; Maximum annual average: 0.017 ppm1°

2009: Maximum 1-hr: 0.069 ppm; Maximum annual average: 0.016 ppm1’

2010: Maximum 1-hr: 0.093 ppm; Maximum annual average: 0.016 ppm’2

Hence, the maximum 1-hr concentration is 93% of standard, while the maximum annual

concentration is 32% of standard. It is unlikely than even a significant increase in NO2will hurt

the District’s continual attainment of the NAAQS for NO2. Furthermore, per Regulation 2-2-302,

NO2 offsets will be required for facilities with increases over 10 TPY, and any increase at all for

facilities above this threshold, which is far lower than what is required under the federal CAA.

The thresholds for modeling and public noticing will ensure a “backstop” requirement to

perform air quality modeling and public noticing for those applications with significant

increases in emissions. Issuing minor NSR permits for new and modified sources will not

interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NO2 NAAQS.

SO2:

EPA’s current NAAQS for sulfur dioxide is 75 ppb on an hourly basis, 140 ppb averaged over 24

hours, and 30 ppb over an annual average. The Bay Area is currently designated as in

attainment of these standards. The latest inventory for SO2 (2008) is 82 tons per day and

29,930 tons per year’3. Approximately 48% comes from stationary sources, while 52% of the

inventory is from motor vehicles’3. The District has reviewed application data’4 and

determined that if all increases from plants less than 40 tons were added together for each year

for years 1991 to 2011 that the averaged, annual total SO2 increase is 49 tons per year and

ranges from 8 to 93 tons per year, which is only 0.027% to 0.311% of the total inventory. From

our monitoring network, the District’s monitoring network has detected the following

concentrations of 502 in the Bay Area:

2008: Maximum 24-hr: 13 ppb; Maximum annual average: 2.1 ppb’5

2009: Maximum 24-hr: 7 ppb; Maximum annual average: 1.7 ppb16

~ BAAQMD Application Data from Years 1991 to 2012.

10 BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2008.

~‘ BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2009.

12 BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2010.

13 BAAQMD Base Year 2008 Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report, May 2011.

14 BAAQMD Application Data from Years 1991 to 2011.

15 BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2008.

8
2010: Maximum 24-hr: 6.5 ppb; Maximum 1-hr: 37 ppb 17, 18

In 2010, the maximum 1-hr concentration is 49.3% of standard, while the maximum 24-hr

concentrations is 49.3% of the annual standard. It is unlikely than even a significant increase in

SO2 will hurt the District’s continual attainment of the NAAQS for 502. In addition, for major

sources, offsets for increases of 502 will be required. The thresholds for modeling and public

noticing will ensure a “backstop” requirement to perform air quality modeling and public

noticing for those applications with significant increases in emissions. Issuing minor NSR

permits for new and modified sources will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of

the 502 NAAQS.

CO:

EPA’s current NAAQS for carbon monoxide is 35 ppm on an hourly basis and 9 ppm averaged

over 8 hours. The Bay Area is currently designated as attainment of this standard. The latest

inventory for CO (2008) is 1723 tons per day and 628,900 tons per year13. Only 10% is from

stationary sources (combustion), while 88% of the inventory is from motor vehicles (the

remaining 2% is from consumer products/dust sources/fires)19. The District has reviewed

application data2° and determined that if all increases from plants less than 100 tons were

added together for each year for years 1991 to 2012 that the averaged, annual total CO

increase is 351 tons per year and ranges from 50 to 804 tons per year, which is only 0.08% to

0.128% of the total inventory. From our monitoring network, the District’s monitoring network

has detected the following concentrations of CO in the Bay Area:

2008: Maximum 1-hr: 5.7 ppm; Maximum 8-hr: 2.5 ppm15

2009: Maximum 1-hr: 4.6 ppm; Maximum 8-hr: 2.9 ppm16

2010: Maximum 1-hr: 3.0 ppm; Maximum 8-hr: 2.2 ppm’7

Hence, the maximum 1-hr concentration is 16% of standard, while the maximum 8-hr

concentration is 32% of standard. It is unlikely than even a significant increase in CO will hurt

the District’s continual attainment of the NAAQS for CO. The thresholds for modeling and

public noticing will ensure a “backstop” requirement to perform air quality modeling and public

noticing for those applications with significant increases in emissions. Issuing minor NSR

permits for new and modified sources will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of

the CO NAAQS.

16 BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2009.

17 BAAQMD Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summary, 2010.

18 Note that the form of the standard changed in 2010.

19 BAAQMD Base Year 2008 Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report, May 2011.

20 BAAQMD Application Data from Years 1991 to 2011.

9
Lead:

The Air District has been classified as “in attainment” for the pre-2008 lead standard of 1.5

ug/m3 and also the post-2008 lead standard. On November 12, 2008 EPA strengthened the

NAAQS for lead. EPA revised the level of the primary (health-based) standard from 1.5

micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 0.15 ug/m3 and revised the secondary (welfare-based)

standard to be identical in all respects to the primary standard. In conjunction with

strengthening the lead NAAQS, the EPA promulgated new monitoring requirements including

new design requirements for the lead NAAQS surveillance network. Monitoring is now required

for lead sources that may contribute to violations of the lead NAAQS and for large urban areas.

The Bay Area does not have stationary sources with lead emissions that trigger the monitoring

requirement. The final requirement sets the emission threshold for monitoring at stationary

sources at 0.50 tpy. However, the Bay Area does have three airports at which lead monitoring

will be required on an experimental basis: Palo Alto and Reid-Hillview Airports in Santa Clara

County, and San Carlos Airport in San Mateo County.

The following is the District’s 2009 inventory of stationary sources with lead emissions:

LOCATION (Ibs/yr) FACILITY

Alameda 2.57E+02 Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc

Alameda 1.31E+01 A B & I Foundry

Alameda 1.24E+01 Ridge Foundry, Inc

Alameda 6.77E+00 Pacific Steel Casting Co-Plant #3

Alameda Total 2.89E+02

Contra Costa 1.62E+01 ConocoPhillips - San Francisco Refinery

Contra Costa 7.37E-’-OO Shell Martinez Refinery

Contra Costa

Total 2.36E+01

(Ibs/yr) 3.13E+02

Additionally, the District monitors lead at its EPA National Core (NCore) monitoring location in

San Jose. NCore stations are multi-pollutant monitoring stations. The lead data from’ the San

Jose site for the 4th quarter of 2011 shows lead levels 60% of the current NAAQS (0.009

ug/m3 )21

Airports are a special category currently, and BAAQMD is monitoring for lead as part of a

required 1-year study at three regional airports (Reid Hillview and Palo Alto Airports in Santa

Clara County and San Carlos Airport in San Mateo County), because emissions from piston

engine aircraft using leaded fuel may approach 0.5 tons per year. The monitors will become

permanent if any 3-month rolling average is equal to or exceeds 50% of the NAAQS. Airport

21 Analytical Results of Testing, Eastern Research Group, July 11, 2012.

10
lead TSP filter analysis is being performed by an EPA contract lab. The District is still awaiting

the first quarter’s results.

The District has been monitoring from a Special Purpose Monitoring Site in Cupertino related to

the Lehigh Cement plant. After collecting an entire year of data from September 2010 through

August 2011, the monitoring22 showed a concentration of 0.002 ug/m3 for both a 30 day

average and 3 month average or 13% of the standard.

It is unlikely than even a significant increase in lead will hurt the District’s continual attainment

of the NAAQS for lead. The thresholds for modeling and public noticing will ensure a

“backstop” requirement to perform air quality modeling and public noticing for those

applications with significant increases in emissions. Issuing minor NSR permits for new and

modified sources will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the lead NAAQS.

22 BAAQMD Summary and Analysis of Cupertino Air Monitoring Results, December 8, 2011

1

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

CAA Section 110(l) Analysis of BAAQMD Permit Exemption Provisions in Regulation 2, Rule 1

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410, requires that when a state revises its State Implementation Plan (SIP), EPA may not approve the revision if it would interfere with any 

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement. EPA Region IX Staff have requested that the Air District prepare an analysis of 

any changes to the exemptions provided in the current EPA-approved version of Regulation 2, Rule 1 that is part of the California SIP. EPA Region IX Staff have expressed a concern that if 

additional sources for which permits are required under the current SIP are exempted, that could potentially implicate requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress or 

other CAA requirements. This analysis responds to EPA Region IX Staff’s request, and will help EPA in reviewing the revised Regulation 2, Rule 1 for SIP approval under Section 110(l). 

This analysis compares the exemptions contained in Regulation 2, Rule 1 in the Proposed Amendments with the most recent EPA-approved regulations in the State Implementation Plan. The 

analysis includes revisions to the exemptions that will be made as part of the Proposed Amendments, and also prior revisions that have been made in earlier amendments adopted by the Board 

of Directors that have not yet been reviewed by EPA. The analysis concludes that the revisions to the District’s permitting exemptions under the Proposed Amendments (and those made in 

earlier amendments since the most recent EPA-approved version) will not interfere with any requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. 

There are several reasons that support this conclusion. First, as a general reason that applies to all amendments, the Air District’s regulatory program as a whole – including the NSR permitting 

program – ensures that the Bay Area is consistent with all CAA requirements for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS and making reasonable further progress. The Air District, along with its 

sister agencies that help administer some applicable requirements, have satisfied all CAA requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 

NAAQS.1 In doing so, the Air District has taken into account the fact that there will be a certain amount of emissions growth from new and modified sources in the Bay Area, including sources 

that are exempt from permitting requirements under the exemptions provided in Regulation 2, Rule 1. Even with such growth, air quality in the Bay Area is in compliance with the NAAQS or on 

a path to achieving that goal. The Air District’s satisfaction of and compliance with all CAA requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress has been achieved taking into 

account that there will be growth in emissions from exempt sources, and nothing in the exemptions provided in Regulation 2, Rule 1 undermines or interferes with the District’s satisfaction of or 

compliance with any such requirement. Thus, as a general matter applicable to all of Regulation 2, Rule 1, there is nothing in any of the revised exemption provisions that would prohibit SIP 

approval under CAA Section 110(l).

2

 

Furthermore, looking at each individual revised exemption provision, there is no evidence on which to conclude that any of them will authorize any unpermitted sources in a manner that would 

interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable further progress or any other CAA requirement. This exemption-by-exemption analysis is set forth in the table 

below. 

 

1 With respect to PM2.5, the Air District will be satisfying its requirements through documentation and analysis being prepared concurrently with the proposed amendments, which will be submitted for EPA review 

and approval.

2

This analysis is discussed further in Section IV.B.3.a. of the Staff Report for the proposed amendments, drawing on technical analysis in the memorandum by C. Lee entitled “Analysis of Compliance with 40 C.F.R. 

§ 51.169(a)&(b)” (August 2012). Please see that discussion for further information.
2

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

2-1-103 Sources not subject to any District 

rule. Yes No

Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 

5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA 

considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has 

established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being 

so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to 

warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not 

have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff 

conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting 

requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution 

from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory 

(depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt

projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere 

with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions 

projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years 

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s 

attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further 

details. 

2-1-105 CARB-registered portable 

equipment Yes No

This equipment is regulated at the state level by the Air Resources Board. ARB regulation establishes 

effective emissions controls, including requirements such as BACT. ARB regulations (i.e., valid PERP 

registration) pre-empts District permitting of such equipment, and so the District does not have 

jurisdiction to require permits for this equipment. See HSC §§ 41752 – 41754. Effective ARB regulation 

will ensure that emissions from such equipment will not interfere with requirements related to 

attainment or reasonable further progress.

2-1-106 Accelerated Permitting Program Yes No

This is not a true permitting exemption. It is an exemption from the Authority to Construct 

requirement only, for situations where a source will be permitted under the Accelerated Permitting 

Program. Such sources will still be subject to NSR permitting requirements, it is just that they will 

obtain a Permit to Operate without first obtaining an Authority to Construct. Accordingly, this is not an 

exemption from the substantive NSR requirement to obtain a permit and comply with all applicable NSR 

elements. As such, it will not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable CAA requirement.
3

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

2-1-113.1.1 Single and multiple family 

dwellings No N/A* In current SIP, 2-1-113.1 and -113.2

2-1-113.1.2 Agricultural sources Yes No

This exemption is part of a revision to District regulations to start permitting agricultural sources. 

Under the most recent SIP-approved version of District regulations, agricultural sources were subject to 

blanket exclusion/exemption provisions under Regulations 1-110.5 (“agriculture operations”) and 2-1-

113.7 (“farming operations”). The District has revised its rules and is now requiring permits for 

agricultural operations with emissions over 50 tons per year. This provision continues to exempt 

agricultural operations below that threshold. This change is therefore a narrowing of the exemption for 

such sources, not an expansion of the exemption. As such, it is not a relaxation from the current SIP 

rules – it is actually making the permitting requirements more stringent in this regard – and it will not 

interfere with requirements related to attainment or RFP. 

2-1-113.1.3 Vehicles No N/A*

Vehicles are not stationary sources and have never been regulated under NSR. They have never been 

permitted under the District’s SIP-approved NSR program, and the District has never even had any 

jurisdiction to require permitting per HSC 42310(a)(1). Emissions from vehicle engines are excluded 

from regulation under the District’s regulations – including Regulation 2 – under current SIP-approved 

Reg. 1-110.1 (which incorporates by reference the definition of “vehicle” in the Vehicle Code). 

Specifying that they are exempt from permitting will not change their regulatory treatment under the 

District’s SIP-approved regulations. 

2-1-113.1.4 Tank vehicles No N/A* Tank vehicles (e.g., gasoline delivery trucks) are also mobile sources that the District does not regulate 

and has never regulated. See also basis for Section 2-1-113.1.3 exemption regarding vehicles.

2-1-113.2.1 Road construction No N/A* In current SIP, 2-1-113.4

2-1-113.2.2 Restaurants No N/A* In current SIP, 2-1-113.5

2-1-113.2.3 Structural changes that do not 

affect emissions No N/A* In current SIP, 2-1-113.6

2-1-113.2.4

Abatement devices used on 

equipment that is exempt from 

permitting

No N/A* In current SIP, 2-1-113.1

2-1-113.2.5

Architectural and industrial 

maintenance coating operations 

subject to Regulations 8-3 and 8-

Yes No

These maintenance operations are subject to the District’s coating regulations in Regulations 8-3 and 8-

48, and emissions from them will be controlled without permitting. Compliance with requirements

related to attainment and reasonable further progress has been satisfied accounting for emissions from 
4

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

48 coating operations in the Bay Area. Such operations will not interfere with any such requirements, 

even without being subject to NSR permitting.

2-1-113.2.6

Portable equipment used for tank 

degassing or vacuum truck control 

requirements under Reg. 8-5, 8-

40, or 8-53

Yes No

This equipment is subject to the District’s degassing requirements in Regulations 8-3 and 8-48, and 

emissions from them will be controlled without permitting. Compliance with requirements related to 

attainment and reasonable further progress has been satisfied accounting for emissions from such 

degassing operations in the Bay Area. Such operations will not interfere with any such requirements, 

even without being subject to NSR permitting.

2-1-113.2.7

PUC-regulated natural gas 

transmission and storage 

equipment

Yes No

Natural gas in essentially non-reactive and does not contribute to ozone formation and will not 

substantially contribute to ozone concentrations, and will not substantially contribute to concentrations 

of any other criteria pollutant. Thus even if there were emissions from such equipment, it would not 

interfere with requirements related to attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. 

2-1-113.2.11 Classroom teaching laboratories Yes No

Classroom teaching laboratories are limited in scope within the Bay Area are not significant contributors 

to the region’s emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants. Emissions from miscellaneous processes 

such as these are included in the analyses and demonstrations that the Air District makes for 

compliance with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. 

Allowing such classroom teaching laboratory activities without requiring an NSR permit will not 

interfere with any such requirements.

2-1-113.2.12

Laboratories <25,000 ft2/50 fume 

hoods that use Responsible 

Laboratory Management Practices

Yes No

Emissions from laboratory activities that are below the size cutoff established in this exemption and 

which use Responsible Laboratory Management Practices are limited in scope within the Bay Area are 

not significant contributors to the region’s emissions inventory of criteria air pollutants. Emissions from 

miscellaneous processes such as these are included in the analyses and demonstrations that the Air 

District makes for compliance with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress. Allowing such laboratory activities without requiring an NSR permit will not interfere 

with any such requirements.

2-1-113.2.13 Venting residual natural gas for 

pipeline maintenance operations Yes No

Natural gas in essentially non-reactive and does not contribute to ozone formation and will not

substantially contribute to ozone concentrations, and will not substantially contribute to concentrations 

of any other criteria pollutant. Venting any residual gas that remains in pipelines when maintenance is 

performed will therefore not interfere with requirements related to attainment or maintenance of any 

NAAQS.

2-1-113.2.15 Asbestos renovation under Reg. Yes No There is no NAAQS for asbestos, so even if asbestos removal that complies with Reg. 11-2 did have any 
5

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

11-2 potential to emit some asbestos fibers, such emissions would not interfere with requirements related 

to attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS. 

2-1-113.2.16 Closed landfills <1M tons Yes No

The District exempts such landfills from NSR permitting requirements because they are not significant 

sources of emissions and are no longer active operations receiving waste. EPA has not subjected such 

landfill sources to its NSPS guidelines requirements, and the District has exempted them from its NSR 

permitting requirements for the same reason. These landfill sources are not significant emissions 

sources and have been taken into account in complying with applicable requirements related to 

attainment and reasonable further progress. 

2-1-113.2.17 Closed landfills 30+ years old Yes No

The District exempts such landfills from NSR permitting requirements because they are not significant 

sources of emissions and are no longer active operations receiving waste. EPA has not subjected such 

landfill sources to its NSPS guidelines requirements, and the District has exempted them from its NSR 

permitting requirements for the same reason. These landfill sources are not significant emissions 

sources and have been taken into account in complying with applicable requirements related to 

attainment and reasonable further progress. 

2-1-113.2.18 Construction of structure that 

does not require a permit Yes No

The District has never regulated construction activities as a regulated activity in and of itself (as 

opposed to requiring an authority to construct for permitted sources, regulating certain types of 

equipment that may be used in construction, etc.). This exemption simply codifies that practice. 

Allowing such construction activities without requiring permits will not interfere with any applicable 

requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress. The District has satisfied all 

applicable requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress taking construction 

activities into account regardless of whether they will be permitted or unpermitted, and allowing them 

to take place without requiring an NSR permit will not interfere with such requirements. 

2-1-113.2.19 Vacuum trucks subject to Reg. 8-

53 Yes No

The District has never regulated vacuum truck operations, and historically it has not required permits 

for such operations because there have not been any regulatory requirements applicable to them. The 

District has recently (as of April 2012) started regulating vacuum truck operations under Regulation 8, 

Rule 53. This exemption was added to specify that although such operations are regulated under 8-53, 

they will not be subject to permit requirements. The District’s rules will be more stringent as a result of 

these changes, as emissions from such operations will now be regulated. Emissions from vacuum truck 

operations will be controlled under Regulation 8-53 even without permitting. Compliance with 

requirements related to attainment and reasonable further progress has been based on accounting for 
6

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

emissions from refineries and other industrial facilities that use vacuum trucks. Vacuum truck 

operations eligible for this exemption were also specifically identified in the District’s 2010 Clean Air 

Plan, in Stationary Source Measure SSM-5. Such operations will not interfere with any such 

requirements, even without being subject to NSR permitting. 

2-1-114 Combustion equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details. 

2-1-115 Particulate sources – quarries 

mineral processing and biomass Yes No

This is a new exemption that has been added since the most recent SIP version of Reg. 2-1. This new 

exemption will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further progress, or 

other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts only sources 

with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are well below 

the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance 

with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles addressed in 

Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute to an 
7

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. The 

sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest such de 

minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases from all 

projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis levels, 

which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the 

Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total 

emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-116 Furnaces ovens and kilns Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 
8

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-117 Food and agricultural equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-118 Surface preparation and cleaning 

equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 
9

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-119 Surface coating and cleaning 

equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-120 Dry cleaning equipment Yes No This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. To the extent that it is 

any less stringent than the current SIP version, it will not interfere with requirements related to 
10

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

attainment, reasonable further progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-

319, this exemption exempts only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important 

requirements). Such sources are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de 

minimis for purposes of maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in 

accordance with the principles addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not 

have any potential to contribute to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to 

NSR permitting requirements. The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more 

than 50% of even the lowest such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of 

the annual emissions increases from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with 

emissions below these de minimis levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such 

sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on 

pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled 

this amount of emissions from de minimis permitted projects, they would not interfere with 

requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress toward attainment. Emissions 

projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases from new sources expected in the coming years 

– including from sources exempt from District permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s 

attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further 

details.

2-1-121 Material working and handling 

equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 
11

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-122 Casting and molding equipment No N/A*

No substantive change to the current SIP version. The only changes are a clarification that extrusion 

molding is a type of plastic molding covered by this exemption under subsection 2-1-122.4, and that

certain mold release products are not subject to the exemption unless they involve very low amounts of 

VOC with annual facility VOC emissions under 150 lb/yr. To the extent that this exclusion for VOC mold 

release products was not already a part of the exemption, this revision makes the exemption more 

narrow and is a strengthening of the regulation, not a relaxation. Moreover, to the extent any Section 

110(l) analysis is required, 150 lb/yr is a very low emissions limit and will not interfere with 

requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress for the same reasons provided for 

other exemptions up to 5 tons per year. 

2-1-123 Liquid storage and loading 

equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis
12

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-124 Semiconductor manufacturing Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements); and furthermore 

the language of the exemption restricts facility VOC emissions to 150 pounds per year. Such sources 

are well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-125 Printed circuit board 

manufacturing Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 
13

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

2-1-126 Testing equipment No N/A*

No substantive change to the current SIP version. The only changes are a clarification of the specific 

types of bench-scale laboratory equipment that are covered under subsection 2-1-126.2. Moreover, to 

the extent any Section 110(l) analysis is required, this exemption is subject to the same 5 tpy limitation 

addressed in connection with other exemptions. The exemption will not interfere with requirements 

related to attainment or reasonable further progress for the same reasons provided for other 

exemptions up to 5 tons per year.

2-1-127 Chemical processing equipment No N/A*

No substantive change to the current SIP version. The only change was to revise the list of the types of 

metals that are processed in electrolytic plating operations in order to make it more comprehensive. 

Moreover, to the extent any Section 110(l) analysis is required, this exemption is subject to the same 5 

tpy limitation addressed in connection with other exemptions. The exemption will not interfere with 

requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress for the same reasons provided for 

other exemptions up to 5 tons per year. 

2-1-128 Miscellaneous equipment Yes No

This exemption is in the current SIP, but it has been revised in several respects. The new provisions that 

have been added will not interfere with requirements related to attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or other CAA requirements. Per the limitations in Section 2-1-319, this exemption exempts 

only sources with emissions of less than 5 tpy (among other important requirements). Such sources are 
14

CAA § 110(l) Analysis – Proposed Amendments to BAAQMD Regulation 2 – September 26, 2012

Exemption 

Provision Brief Description of Exemption Revision to Current SIP?

Interfere with 

requirements 

related to 

attainment or RFP?

Basis for Conclusions

well below the levels at which EPA considers emissions to be de minimis for purposes of maintaining 

compliance with the NAAQS. EPA has established such levels in accordance with the principles 

addressed in Alabama Power v. Costle as being so low that they do not have any potential to contribute 

to an exceedance of any NAAQS sufficient to warrant being subject to NSR permitting requirements. 

The sources eligible for this exemption will not have emissions of more than 50% of even the lowest 

such de minimis level. Moreover, District Staff conducted an analysis of the annual emissions increases 

from all projects that are subject to permitting requirements with emissions below these de minimis

levels, which showed that the total contribution from all such sources each year is only 0.02% to 0.34% 

of the Bay Area’s total emissions inventory (depending on pollutant and year evaluated). Even if the 

total emissions from all de minimis exempt projects equaled this amount of emissions from de minimis

permitted projects, they would not interfere with requirements related to attainment or reasonable 

further progress toward attainment. Emissions projections for the Bay Area do not show that increases 

from new sources expected in the coming years – including from sources exempt from District 

permitting requirements – will jeopardize the District’s attainment efforts. See also Staff Report Section 

IV.B.3.a. & fn. 73 (Lee memorandum) for further details.

Notes: *Section 110(l) applies to revisions to the SIP, so for exemptions where there is no revision to the District’s current SIP-approved exemption Section 110(l) is not implicated and no 

analysis of interference with requirements related to attainment or reasonable further progress is required. (Although the District’s compliance with all applicable requirements relating to 

attainment and reasonable further progress even with emissions growth from sources subject to permit exemptions would of course apply to these provisions as well, even if Section 110(l) 

were implicated.)