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.)