SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

 

A - 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

APPENDIX A 

Summary of Significant Comments and District Responses 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702 

August 18, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR REVISED 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4702 RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC 

HEARING ON AUGUST 18, 2011 

Stakeholder Comments 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

Southern California Gas (SCG) 

Fresno Metro Ministry (FMM) 

West Kern Water District (WKWD) 

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 

Tehachapi Cummings County Water District (TCCWD) 

1. COMMENT: After the one-time report required by Section 5.1.2 is submitted to 

the District, does the District expect updates to that report. If we install more 

engines after the submittal date for the report, are we expected to report those 

engines to the District? (PG&E) 

RESPONSE: The report required by Section 5.1.2 is a one-time report to 

provide the District with more information regarding how many engines are in the 

valley that are sized between 25-50 bhp. We do not expect any more reports or 

updates after the submittal date. If you install an engine rated between 25 and 

50 bhp after that date we will not expect you to submit another report to us. 

2. COMMENT: Engines each have unique personalities of their own. The 

SCAQMD is pushing the NOx limits too low for industry to comply with. We 

appreciate the flexibility of the fee option. We still oppose the 11ppm limit, 

because we believe that only new engines can meet the 11ppm limit, it is too 

difficult to meet the 11 ppm for retrofit engines. (SCG) 

RESPONSE: The fee option leaves the discretion to the facility while still 

achieving much needed emission reductions. 

3. COMMENT: We support the amendments. We still have concern about the 

limited use engines because if these engines are used during times of high 

ozone levels it could be detrimental to air quality. (FMM) 

RESPONSE: The District is proactive in providing Valley residents and 

businesses with information when Ozone levels begin to rise. We appreciate the 

cooperation of industry to be discrete in the times they use these engines, 

however we do not force them to not use engines on high ozone days. It is also 

important to note that the emissions from these engines are low. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

4. COMMENT: If the water districts were allowed a 50 ppm limit, then the emission 

reduction lost would be about 0.4 tpd of NOx. This is a minimal amount of 

emissions. The District allowed a provision for engines that have a variable load, 

but limited that provision to gas compression only. Water districts deal with a 

variable load on our engines too. We request that the District staff look at 

variable load for water districts, and provide a provision for these engines similar 

to that of the one for gas compression, if appropriate. (WKWD, TCCWD) 

RESPONSE: Staff awaits the submission of information from the water districts, 

specific to their facilities, supporting the variability of the load on their engines; 

and data supporting the technological infeasibility of adding SCR to engines due 

to the variability. 

5. COMMENT: We support the recommendations presented to the Board today 

and thank District staff for their efforts and openness during this public workshop 

process. (WSPA) 

RESPONSE: District staff thanks WSPA for the comment. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4702 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES) 

DATED AUGUST 18, 2011 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: Please provide further analysis of how the requirements for sparkignited agricultural operation (AO) engines fulfill the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regarding 

technical and economic feasibility. Note that EPA's approval of the 1-hr ozone 

plan in March 2010 did not opine on RACT (See 74 FR at 33936).

RESPONSE: As published in the Federal Register, EPA determined that the 

requirements of AO engines, as added to Rule 4702, to be, “consistent with EPA 

regulations, and relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, 

BACM/BACT, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations.”1

 Additionally, the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) published in August 2007 for the Proposed 

Rulemaking and District Final Rule for the California SIP for Rule 4702 states 

“Submitted Rule 4702 continues to implement BACM/BACT and other SIP 

approval criteria for stationary internal combustion engines. In addition, these 

revisions satisfy SJVAPCD’s commitment to apply BACT-level controls to 

agricultural engines, consistent with its Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan. Because 

the criteria for BACM/BACT are stricter than for RACT, by meeting BACT 

requirements submitted Rule 4702 also fulfills RACT.” 2

As illustrated by the dates of the EPA actions to approve the Rule 4702 as 

RACT, spark-ignited AO engines have only recently been required to comply with 

rule 4702 and are in the first generation of rule requirements. It is important to 

note that AO engines are currently in the middle of the most recent compliance 

strategy and these engines are still in the process of coming into compliance with 

new standards with compliance dates ranging from January 2009 through 

January 2015. 

Additionally, as illustrated in Appendix D of Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities), amended in October 2010, the agriculture community cannot absorb 

the costs of additional controls, nor can they pass those costs onto the consumer 

because the agricultural industry competes in a global economy where prices are 

not determined by the individual farmers. Based on these findings, the District 

 

1

 Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality management District, 73 Fed. Reg. 7, pp. 1818 – 1822. (2008, 

January 10). 

2

 Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Direct Final Rule for the 

California State Implementation Plan San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4702, 

Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2. (August 2007). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

believes the current requirements in Rule 4702 satisfy RACT and imposing 

additional requirements to AO engines is not an economically feasible option at 

this time, and would go beyond RACT. 

2. COMMENT: Appendix A of the staff report responds to our July 11th comment 

regarding the exemption of sulfur fuel requirements for all AO engines, and 

states that all these engines already use low sulfur fuel. Please remove this 

exemption since there seems to be no need for it. 

RESPONSE: Staff do not feel that it would be appropriate to remove the implied 

exemption for AO engines from sulfur requirements as stated in Section 5.7 and 

Section 5.10. The rule has been presented to the public throughout the ruleamendment process since the first draft amendments were released to the public 

for review in September 2010 as having Sections 5.7 and 5.10 being applicable 

specifically to Non-AO engines. All agricultural irrigation pump engines use PUC 

regulated gas, therefore, District staff agree that this exemption could be 

interpreted as unnecessary. However, to amend rule language prior to the public 

hearing to include AO engines to these sections of the rule without first 

presenting the changes to the public through a public workshop process could 

possibly confuse stakeholders. As staff agree with EPA’s assessment that there 

is no need for the exemption, we also do not feel it will have an adverse affect to 

the integrity or enforceability of the rule or its requirements by leaving the 

exemption in proposed rule language. Staff will explore this option in future plan 

or rule development efforts. 

3. COMMENT: The national economic incentive program (EIP) guidance applies 

broadly to incentive programs including prohibitory rules, such as Rule 4702, 

which allow sources flexibility to comply with traditional emission limits through 

emissions averaging and/or fees. The national guidance presumes that EIP 

provisions must provide the same level of deterrence to noncompliance as 

traditional emission limits. Rule 4702's AECP provisions allow emission 

averaging both over multiple days and among multiple units. Unfortunately, a 

source might argue for only one violation under the existing rule language, 

potentially dramatically reducing liability and hence deterrence to noncompliance 

under Federal law. Therefore, Rule 4702 should be revised to clarify that the 

violation will apply to each day and each engine that is part of the averaging 

provision if a source does not meet the NOx emissions requirements in Section 

8. Rule 4702 also allows sources to annually pay fees in lieu of complying with 

emissions limits. Please ensure that the rule sufficiently deters noncompliance if 

it could be read that failure to pay the annual fee, even a large annual fee, might 

result in only one rule violation for a year's emissions. Note that both these 

potential clarifications of the number of potential rule violations might not affect 

penalties collected in specific District enforcement actions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: The District concurs that the same level of deterrence to 

noncompliance should apply to traditional emission limits as well as Rule 4702’s 

Alternate Emissions Compliance Plan (AECP) option. District Rule 1090 

(Penalty) states, “Every day during any portion of which such violation occurs 

constitutes a separate offense.” Any violation of the AECP would thus be 

considered a violation every day within the averaging period with penalties up to 

the maximum allowable levels under the Clean Air Act. 

4. COMMENT: Sections 4.1.6 and 4.3.2 exempt units subject to California's 

Portable Engine Registration Program (PERP) and to SJV Rule 2280 from 

complying with Rule 4702. California should submit both these rules to the SIP 

consistent with CAA section 110(i).

RESPONSE: The District is currently discussing the matter with ARB and will 

consider submitting the rules into the SIP at a future date. 

5. COMMENT: It is inappropriate to include specific NSR exemptions in prohibitory 

rules such as Rule 4702 instead of in Rule 2201, where SJVUAPCD's BACT and 

offset requirements are found. Rule 2201 Sections 4.2.3 and 4.6.8 provide an 

exemption from BACT and offset requirements for existing facilities which install 

an emission control technique performed solely for the purpose of compliance 

with the requirements of the District. As stated in EPA’s 1999 TSD for Rule 

2201, when equipment is installed for the sole purpose of complying with new 

emission standards, whether they be District, State or Federal air pollution 

control laws, then that emission unit replacement can be considered an emission 

control technique, and exempt from the requirement to apply BACT and offsets 

pursuant to the exemptions provided in Rule 2201, Section 4.2.3 and 4.6.8. 

RESPONSE: District staff have worked diligently with EPA and ARB to resolve 

the issue of how to clarify this exemption in rule language. The District, EPA, 

and ARB have come to an agreement that the exemption will remain in Section 

4.4 of Rule 4702 but will be re-worded to clarify the exemption. Please refer to 

the Revised Proposed Rule for rule language and to the Final Draft Staff Report 

for a more complete discussion of this issue. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

No comment letter has been received from ARB. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association (MECA) 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

6. COMMENT: We agree with staff’s conclusion that the 25-50 hp IC engines are 

already regulated under the U.S. EPA’s NSPS and therefore the point of sale 

provision is the most cost effective way to insure low NOx emissions for these 

small stationary engines. The NSCR technology to reduce emissions from small 

spark-ignited, rich burn off-road engines is based on automotive-type three-way 

catalyst closed-loop technology. Three-way catalysts have also been used 

effectively on thousands of large, natural gas-fueled, reciprocating engines used 

for power production or pumping applications. These same catalyst technologies 

can be adapted to spark-ignited engines used in portable generators 

independent of engine displacement. For larger displacement rich-burn engines, 

we agree with SJVUAPCD’s conclusion that non-selective catalytic reduction can 

be applied to meet the emission standards outlined in the proposed rule. The 

use of NSCR technology is a cost-effective way to reduce NOx emissions from 

existing stationary rich-burn engines. NSCR is a proven technology based on 

automotive three-way catalysts that has been installed on thousands of rich-burn 

engines. Additionally, NSCR systems have been verified with ARB for use on 

large, spark-ignited off-road engines (engines 25 hp or greater) to reduce NOx, 

HCs, and CO. These verified systems can be used on existing stationary richburn engines as well. (MECA) 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the comment and for the recognition of 

the Districts continuing efforts to improve air quality in the Valley. 

7. COMMENT: SCR has long been the technology of choice for NOx emission 

reduction in industrial processes and stationary power generation applications. 

The commercial use of SCR systems for the control of NOx from lean-burn 

stationary engines has been around since the mid- 1980s in Europe and since 

the early 1990s in the U.S. SCR systems have been installed worldwide for 

stationary engines with varying fuel combinations. These units have been 

deployed in power generation applications including dozens of gas compression 

units. More recently, cost-effective urea-SCR systems have been developed for 

mobile source applications, including heavy-duty trucks, light-duty vehicles, offroad equipment, marine engines, and locomotives. SCR is being used by most 

engine manufacturers for complying with U.S. EPA’s on-road heavy-duty diesel 

engine emission standards since 2010 and in Japan since 2009. 

We agree with the cost estimates that the District has used in their costeffectiveness analysis in preparing these rule amendments. The final costs of a 

system will depend on the condition and baseline emissions of the engine and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

the percent level of reduction required to meet the established NOx concentration 

limit. Experience of our members has shown that installation costs will vary but 

are typically on the order of the system costs. Retrofitting systems has been 

done both inside and outside of existing structures that house the engines. In the 

case where limited interior space may be available, systems have been installed 

in place of the existing exhaust muffler on the roof of buildings. Some systems 

have also been appropriately designed to operate in cold temperature climates 

like those in the gas fields of Wyoming or the Sierra Mountains of California. 

(MECA) 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the comment and for the recognition of 

the Districts efforts to improve air quality in the Valley. 

8. COMMENT: Staff has exempted waste gas fueled engines from NOx controls 

due to the variability in heat content of waste gas. SCR systems have been 

installed on large (3500 hp) digester gas fueled engines by automatically 

adjusting the BTU content of the digester gas by blending in natural gas to 

achieve the necessary BTU content of the mixture. This SCR system is 

successfully achieving the NOx design target of 9 ppmv. This type of an 

approach may provide additional NOx reductions in the San Joaquin Valley. 

We believe that the District is missing a significant opportunity to reduce CO and 

VOC emissions from lean burn natural gas engines by not setting standards that 

would require inexpensive, passive catalyst controls that are in use today such 

as oxidation catalysts (OC). Oxidation catalysts have been applied to over 

250,000 off-road diesel mobile source applications and hundreds of stationary 

lean burn SI engines. Oxidation catalysts are extremely effective in achieving 

90% reduction of HAPs from lean burn engines. These catalysts also provide 

significant reductions in toxic emissions by eliminating benzene, formaldehyde, 

acetaldehyde, methanol and other VOCs from the exhaust. Even a relatively 

inexpensive oxidation catalyst can provide significant multi-pollutant co-benefits 

in reducing CO, HC, VOC, and SOF and, therefore, the District should consider 

setting CO and VOC standards that would require emissions controls on all 

stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. (MECA) 

RESPONSE: While the District recognizes the potential for catalytic controls to 

reduce CO and VOC emissions; in order to focus on NOx emission reductions, 

the District has opted to not change the existing VOC limits in Rule 4702. This 

decision is based on stakeholders’ recommendations and results of the South 

Coast AQMD variances. Keeping the existing VOC and CO emission limits in the 

current rule would allow engine manufacturers and emission control system 

manufacturers to have the much-needed flexibility to be able to achieve much 

lower NOx emissions under varying field operating conditions and applications. 

Please refer to the Final Draft Staff Report for a more detailed discussion. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

9. COMMENT: SJVAPCD added Section 4.1.6 with the intention of providing an 

exemption from the entirety of Rule 4702 to portable engines registered in 

Statewide PERP. However, as Section 4.1.6 is currently written, the exemption 

is provided to portable engines registered under both SJVAPCD Rule 2280 and 

Statewide PERP. We respectfully request that Section 4.1.6 be revised to clarify 

this exemption. (PG&E)

RESPONSE: Upon evaluation of the proposed rule language for this exemption 

staff agree that it is confusing and appears to require registration in both 

programs. It was not the intention of District staff to require registration in both 

programs. Therefore, staff have amended proposed rule language to clarify the 

existing draft amendment. This exemption is clarified by separating the two 

exemptions into Section 4.1.6 and Section 4.1.7. This is not a change in the 

proposed exemption but rather a clarification to the exemption. Please refer to 

the Revised Proposed Rule 4702 for the exact language. 

10. COMMENT: Section 4.2 provides an exemption from Rule 4702 to emergency 

standby engines and low-use engines, except for the requirements in Sections 

5.9 and 6.2.3. SJVAPCD is proposing to change the applicability level from 

engines >50 hp to engines ≥ 25 hp. Therefore, emergency and low-use engines 

between 25-50 hp would be subject to the operational and recordkeeping 

requirements of Sections 5.9 and 6.2.3. 

We respectfully request that an exemption be added to Rule 4702, Section 4.1 to 

exempt emergency standby engines and low-use engines between 25-50hp from 

the entirety of the rule. (PG&E) 

RESPONSE: To clarify that engines rated between 25 and 50 bhp are only 

subject to the point of sale requirement and one-time reporting requirement of 

Section 5.1, District staff have added an exemption, Section 4.5, to the revised 

proposed rule language. This additional exemption does not change the 

applicability, requirements, or meaning of rule language, but is simply a 

clarification of standards as intended and explained to stakeholders throughout 

the rule-amendment process. Please refer to Section 4.5 of the Revised 

Proposed Rule for rule language and to the Final Draft Staff Report for further 

discussion regarding this exemption. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR 

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO RULE 4702 (INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES) 

DATED JUNE 22, 2011 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: Similar to the analysis provided in Appendix C of the staff report for 

other engines; please provide an analysis of how the requirements for 

agricultural operation (AO) engines fulfill the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements 

for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regarding technical and 

economic feasibility. 

RESPONSE: As published in the Federal Register, EPA determined that the 

requirements of AO engines, as added to Rule 4702, to be, “consistent with EPA 

regulations, and relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, 

BACM/BACT, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations.”3

 Additionally, the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) published in August 2007 for the Proposed 

Rulemaking and District Final Rule for the California SIP for Rule 4702 states 

“Submitted Rule 4702 continues to implement BACM/BACT and other SIP 

approval criteria for stationary internal combustion engines. In addition, these 

revisions satisfy SJVAPCD’s commitment to apply BACT-level controls to 

agricultural engines, consistent with its Amended 2003 PM-10 Plan. Because 

the criteria for BACM/BACT are stricter than for RACT, by meeting BACT 

requirements submitted Rule 4702 also fulfills RACT.” 4

Additionally, as illustrated in Appendix D of Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities), amended in October 2010, the agriculture community cannot absorb 

the costs of additional controls, nor can they pass those costs onto the consumer 

because the agricultural industry competes in a global economy where prices are 

not determined by the individual farmers. 

2. COMMENT: Appendix A of the previous draft staff report states that SOx 

regulation for AO engines are not necessary because most of these engines 

already use low sulfur fuel. Please provide further information on which type of 

AO engines do not use low sulfur fuel and whether it would be economically and 

technically feasible for these engines to use low sulfur fuel. 

 

3

 Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality management District, 73 Fed. Reg. 7, pp. 1818 – 1822. (2008, 

January 10). 

4

 Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Direct Final Rule for the 

California State Implementation Plan San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4702, 

Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2. (August 2007). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: Staff would like to clarify language from the previous Appendix A 

to say that not most engines use low sulfur fuel, but all AO engines use low sulfur 

fuel. This correction is based on the best information available to District staff at 

this time. 

3. COMMENT: Some cost information was not incorporated in the cost 

effectiveness analysis because SJVUAPCD believes the lower costs did not 

reflect the entirety of installing and operating the required controls. The District 

should show all information available and further explain why the additional cost 

information is not appropriate to incorporate. 

RESPONSE: The cost analysis has been revised to reflect a broader range of 

compliance costs, and a more detailed discussion about costs used. See 

Appendix C of this staff report. 

4. COMMENT: Although Rule 4702 is identified as a control measure in the 

District’s 2007 Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan; no specific emission 

reductions are associated with the control measure. Appendix B now projects 

1.49 tons/day of NOx emission reductions from this amended rule, although 

sources may pays fees in lieu of complying with the standards. EPA has 

previously raised concerns that emission reductions from similar incentive 

programs should not be credited until SJVUAPCD provides additional information 

to ensure that the emission reductions are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable and 

permanent. We understand, based on the District’s response to comments in the 

previous draft staff report, that emissions reductions from incentive programs will 

not be counted/credited in the SIP until the reductions are achieved. 

RESPONSE: The staff report and Appendix B have revised language that 

explicitly states that the emission reduction calculations are only for determining 

the cost effectiveness. See Final Draft Staff Report and Appendix B for details. 

5. COMMENT: Various sections (3.24.1, 4.2.1, 4.3.1.3 and 5.8.6) give the APCO 

discretion to allow alternate devices for metering. Consistent with long-standing 

national policy on APCO discretion, these sections need to provide more detail 

on the criteria the APCO will use to deem an alternate method approvable or 

include the need for EPA and ARB approval for alternate methods. 

RESPONSE: Rule language has been amended to include EPA in the approval 

process. It is not necessary to include ARB approval in rule language; therefore, 

ARB was not added to rule language. Please see the proposed rule for changes. 

6. COMMENT: Section 4.4 allows for an NSR permit exemption which is 

inappropriate in a prohibitory rule. This provision must be removed from the rule. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: Section 4.4 allows an exemption from the requirements of Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) and Offset requirements of Rule 2201 

(New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule) if the replacement engine is 

installed for the sole purpose of complying with Rule 4702. The narrow and 

limited exemption from BACT and Offset specified in existing Rule 4702 for 

replacement engines is appropriate since Section 5.2 of the rule requires an 

operator to replace existing older compression-ignited engines with cleaner EPAcertified Tier 3 or Tier 4 engines. If the exemption were removed from Rule 

4702, operators who, according to the rule, must replace their engines with Tier 3 

engines, for instance, would instead be subject to BACT when they apply for 

permits to install those Tier 3 engines. Instead of installing a Tier 3 engine, in the 

absence of this exemption language, an operator may be required to electrify or 

install a Tier 4 engine to comply with BACT requirements. This outcome would 

be clearly unfair, as it would be contrary to the plain language of the rule and to 

the requirements as they were explained to stakeholders during the public ruledevelopment process. Although existing Rule 2201 Sections 4.2.3 and 4.6.8 

allow exemptions from BACT and Offset requirements, the exemptions apply 

only to the installation or modification of an emission control technique performed 

solely for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of District, State or 

Federal air pollution control laws, regulations or orders. Such exemptions do not 

apply to replacement units needed to comply with the prohibitory rules. 

Therefore, the District will retain the existing language in Rule 4702. 

 

7. COMMENT: Language must be added to clarify that a fee cannot be paid in lieu 

of meeting limits of Table 1 since the District must ensure that RACT will be 

implemented for appropriate sources subject to Rule 4702. 

RESPONSE: It was never the District’s intent to allow operators to increase 

actual emissions above what is currently allowed in Table 1 when they participate 

in the fee payment option. Language has been added to the rule to explicitly 

state this concept. See Proposed Rule 4702 for details. 

8. COMMENT: Please explain how eliminating the percent reduction limits in the 

rule does not constitute a rule relaxation. 

RESPONSE: District staff has added a discussion about how removing the 

percent reduction does not constitute a rule relaxation. See the Final Draft Staff 

Report for details. 

9. COMMENT: Rule 4702 is an economic incentive program because of the 

provisions which allow for alternative compliance – averaging emissions at 

multiple units over a 7-day averaging period (Section 8), and the annual payment 

of fees in lieu of complying with NOx emissions standards (Sections 5.6 and 7.8). 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: The District would like to clarify that Rule 4702 is a prohibitory rule 

that provides alternative compliance options. These compliance options allow 

flexibility for the businesses in the Valley to comply with regulations and protect 

public health by improving air quality by reducing emissions in the Valley; which 

is especially important in these tough economic times. 

10. COMMENT: To ensure adequate deterrence to noncompliance with alternative 

provisions, Rule 4702 should specify that it is a violation of each and every day 

within the averaging period for each engine that is part of the averaging provision 

if a source does not meet the NOx emissions requirements in Section 8. We are 

aware of the District’s provisions for late payment of fees. Rule 4702 should also 

clarify that if a source fails to pay the annual fees that failure constitutes 365 days 

of violations. 

RESPONSE: When a facility fails to comply with a rule requirement, it is District 

policy to issue that facility a Notice of Violation until such time as the issue is 

resolved. Rule language requires engines participating in the averaging 

provision to meet NOx emission requirements in Section 8. Rule language also 

requires the payment of annual fees by a specific date each year. Failure to 

comply with these requirements, as appropriate, would result in a violation of rule 

requirements and the issuance of a Notice of Violation. Fines and/or other 

penalties are determined by the District on a case-by-case basis. 

 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS: 

No comment letter has been received from ARB. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Aera Energy LLC (AERA) 

Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) 

EnviroTech Consultants, Inc. (ETC) 

Henry Leasing and Manufacturing, LLC (HLAM) 

Kern Oil & Refining (KOR) 

Nisei Farmers League (NFL) 

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

San Joaquin Farm Bureau (SJFB) 

Southern California Gas (SCG) 

West Kern Water District (WKWD) 

Vintage Production California, LLC (VPC) 

Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 15 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

11. COMMENT: The definition of “replacement engine” in Section 3.33 – where is 

that in effect in the rule? (VPC, WSPA) 

RESPONSE: The exemption in Section 4.4 refers specifically to replacement 

engines; therefore a definition of replacement engine was placed in Section 3.0 

(Definitions). 

12. COMMENT: If NSCR’s are already on existing facility permits and installed on all 

units, then an ATC shouldn’t be required if upsizing the NSCR to meet new 

reduced emission reductions. The rule should be modified to allow these 

changes without an ATC. The APCD could track modifications in the Emission 

Control Plan or Inspection & Maintenance Plan, submitted by facilities. This 

action would save money, expedite the process, and save paper work. (VPC, 

WKWD, WSPA) 

RESPONSE: An authority to construct (ATC) is simply the vehicle which the 

District uses to approve either construction or other types of alterations or 

modifications to how operations actually operate. The District uses the ATC 

process for all changes needed to comply with a prohibitory rule, such as Rule 

4702, to review the proposed measures and ensure the appropriate conditions 

are placed on the permit. Additionally, the requirements imposed on an ATC 

application are determined by what modification is being sought. An application 

to upsize an NSCR unit to comply with Rule 4702 would have minimal, if any, 

requirements from New Source Review (District Rule 2201). 

13. COMMENT: West Kern Water District has 20 IC engines that again will require 

the installation of larger NSCR’s on 18 rich-burn engines and proposed new SCR 

installation on our 2 lean-burn engines. The 18 larger NSCR’s will cost $30,000 

each. The new SCR’s, for the lean burn engines, will cost $150,000 each. This 

doesn’t include installation or the cost to replace elements every 2 or 3 years. In 

the past we could get 1 or 2 washings on each element but West Kern Water 

District doesn’t believe that will be an option at 11 ppmv NOX limit. (WKWD, 

WSPA) 

RESPONSE: District staff thanks the commentor for submitting cost information. 

14. COMMENT: Installing new SCR systems on lean-burn engines will require major 

facility modifications. These costs would place an undue hardship on facilities. 

The socioeconomic analysis did not account for the SCR for lean burn engines, 

or for the additional costs of heavy metals and it should account for these costs. 

(WKWD, WSPA) 

RESPONSE: The District recognizes that each facility has its own challenges 

with respect to installing additional equipment, some of which may include the 

modification of existing structures. District staff has solicited cost information and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 16 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

estimates from stakeholders throughout the rule development process and has 

not received submittal of any cost data that included the increase in cost for 

metals or structure amendments; therefore, did not include such data in the cost 

effectiveness analysis. District staff continues to encourage the submission of 

cost data, and would be happy to include it in the cost effectiveness analysis 

once it has been submitted, as long as that submission is in a timely manner. 

15. COMMENT: Industry has only had between 5 to 6 years to recover costs 

associated with Rule 4702 Phase 1. Water Districts, as well as some other 

industries, have costly project upgrades and scheduled facility maintenance that 

is adversely affected by ongoing air regulation costs. The cost effectiveness and 

socioeconomic analysis should include a discussion about the costs from the 

previous rule-amending project. (WKWD, WSPA) 

RESPONSE: When looking at impacts to industry, increases in maintenance 

and operating costs from previous years are included in a facility’s expenses for 

that year. It would be difficult to determine from the financial statements what 

exact costs are associated with a rule change compared to other reasons why 

the maintenance costs might be higher (e.g., increased raw material costs, 

inflation, additional safety requirements, compliance with rules from other 

regulatory agencies, etc.). 

16. COMMENT: Although the appendices and staff report calculate and report on the 

annual compliance costs and cost effectiveness of the proposed rule, those 

numbers are essentially reported with no discussion or comparison regarding 

how these costs compare to other District rules. Such a comparison is needed in 

order to determine if the proposed rule and NOx emission standard is 

economically justified and cost effective for the regulated community. (EMA) 

RESPONSE: The District is in non-attainment of the federal ambient air quality 

standards for both ozone and PM2.5. The District’s mandate is to strive to 

protect the health of Valley residents through efforts to meet health-based state 

and federal ambient air-quality standards. The reduction in NOx emissions from 

stationary engines is one strategy to bring the District into attainment of the 

ozone and PM2.5 health-based standards. As a single number, cost 

effectiveness does not fully characterize how a change to an existing emission 

limit affects businesses. Businesses make decisions based on how the 

compliance cost affects their profits, not on the dollars per ton for a particular 

technology. If a business owner determines that the installation of control 

equipment is too expensive, the proposed rule allows the payment of a fee. The 

District would then use the fee to fund other emission-reducing projects to offset 

the engine’s emissions. For an individual business, this fee payment may be the 

right decision. In other cases, the installation of enhanced control equipment 

may make more business sense. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 17 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

17. COMMENT: The District has not accounted for all the costs in the cost 

effectiveness and socioeconomic analyses. We request the staff report provide 

additional details of how the cost effectiveness analysis was performed. (WSPA, 

VPC, NFL) 

RESPONSE: The cost effectiveness analysis has been revised to add more 

details of how the analysis was performed. See Appendix C of this staff report 

for the changes. 

18. COMMENT: The District should remove all references to 25 to 50 hp engines 

from Rule 4702. No other air district regulates engines between 25 and 50 bhp, 

and they have always been considered an insignificant source of emissions, 

regulating them will do very little to improve air quality but could have devastating 

financial effects. Also, these engines are already subject to Federal regulations 

and these amendments would create duplicative requirements imposing 

overlapping and unnecessary costs on operators. (HLAM, ETC, WSPA, VPC, 

WKWD) 

RESPONSE: Proposed rule language has been amended to be a point of sale 

requirement, meaning that only those engines that change ownership would be 

affected. The proposed requirement does not alter or duplicate any of the federal 

regulations for this size range engines. Please refer to the Final Draft Staff 

Report for more details about the proposed language and refer to the Proposed 

Rule for the actual proposed language. 

19. COMMENT: We request the staff report provide the cost effectiveness analysis 

and socioeconomic analyses needed to address the 25 to 50 bhp draft rule 

language. (WSPA, VPC) 

RESONSE: Rule requirements for 25 to 50 bhp requirements have been updated 

and are now point of sale requirements. Please refer to the Proposed Rule for 

language amendments and to the Final Draft Staff Report for the discussion 

about the amendments. The language, as proposed as a point of sale 

requirement would only affect the replacement of an engine, at the time the 

operator chooses to replace an engine. As such, the costs would be incurred 

regardless of this requirement. It is the operator’s choice as to when to replace 

an engine; the district is not requiring the operator to replace an engine. 

Therefore, there are no additional costs associated with this requirement. 

20. COMMENT: It is not uncommon to move 25 to 50 hp engines from one location 

to another. If the current draft version of Rule 4702 is adopted, it will add an 

extreme financial burden to our Company, possibly resulting in shutting down our 

engine leasing division, resulting in the loss of several jobs. This must be 

addressed in the Cost Effectiveness Analysis. (HLAM) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 18 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

An engine can be “supplied” and/or “installed” several times to several users at 

several locations within the engine’s useful lifespan. Draft language would 

subject these engines to CFR standards every time they are “supplied” and/or 

“installed” resulting in the premature replacement of perfectly good engines with 

newly manufactured engines; which would significantly increase operating costs. 

These additional costs must be included in the cost effectiveness analysis and 

the loss of jobs must be included in the socioeconomic analysis to make these 

analyses valid. (HLAM, VPC) 

RESPONSE: Language has been revised to clarify that the engine must meet 

the latest emission standards at the time ownership of the engine changes. An 

operator who moves an engine from one physical site to another would not be 

affected as long as ownership of the engine does not change hands. In the case 

where ownership of the engine changes, only those engines that meet the 

cleanest-available emission limits would be allowed to continue operation within 

the District’s boundaries. Engines not meeting the latest federal emission limits 

could be sold to areas outside the District, but would be prohibited from operating 

within the Valley. 

21. COMMENT: The cost effectiveness for NOx reductions from rich burn and for 

lean burn engines exceeds the maximums cost effectiveness threshold for NOx 

established by the District Governing Board. The District should seriously 

consider forgoing the adoption of control measures where the cost effectiveness 

of the reductions achieved exceed the maximum cost effectiveness thresholds 

established by the District’s Governing Board in the BACT Cost Effectiveness 

Threshold adopted on May 14, 2008. (WSPA, SCG) 

RESPONSE: The cost effectiveness threshold adopted in 2008 relates to 

obtaining permits for new and modified sources and is not used for rule projects. 

Rule projects use a combination of the cost effectiveness and the socioeconomic 

impact analysis to determine the most effective control strategies. 

22. COMMENT: The NOx reductions achieved from each engine are included in 

Appendix B. The annualized retrofit cost for each engine is reported in Appendix 

C. However, the results of the cost effectiveness calculations for each engine 

are not included in the staff report. The missing information is easily derived by 

combining the data sets reported by the District in Appendices B and C. We 

recommend that the information be included in the staff report prepared for this 

rule making session. (WSPA, SCG) 

RESPONSE: The Final Draft Staff Report has been updated with a discussion 

that addresses the comment. It is important to note that the rule has an annual 

fee option as a compliance option that is not included in the aforementioned 

tables. Please see Appendix C of the Final Draft Staff Report for the detailed 

discussion. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 19 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

23. COMMENT: The District should do a comprehensive review of the test methods 

cited in both rules; some of the test methods cited are not commonly used by 

local laboratories and the local laboratories have more commonly used test 

methods that are just as effective or more effective than the test methods cited in 

the rules. In some cases, test methods have actually been superseded by new 

methods and the superseded methods are no longer supported. The rules 

should be written such that new equivalent test methods approved by EPA 

and/or ARB can be used. Test methods cited should not include the “dash 

number” (indicating year method revision) unless there is something very specific 

to that version of the test method that is essential in showing compliance with the 

rule. If the “dash numbers” are included, they get incorporated into conditions in 

Title V permits, then when the test method is revised, a new “dash number” is 

assigned, and the Title V Permit holder can no longer comply with the condition. 

(AERA) 

RESPONSE: EPA given the general guidance to include the dash # for ASTM 

test methods be included in rule language. Existing rule language for Rule 4702 

provides operators to use “or any other method approved by EPA and the APCO”; 

meaning that if EPA has approved a more recent version of an ASTM, it can be 

used as a test method. Please see Section 7.4 for this test method language. Rule 

2020 is not a prohibitory rule, and language in Rule 2020 includes language 

allowing for the most recent EPA approved version of the ASTM test methods, or 

alternative test methods for compliance for most of the ASTM test methods 

mentioned in rule language. It is also important to note that operator concerns with 

specific language in a permit should be addressed with the permits department and 

handled by the Title V permit department. 

24. COMMENT: EMA supports the staff revisions to the June 2010 version of the 

draft rule that maintain current VOC and CO emission levels for all engines and 

NOx levels for waste gas, cyclic-loaded, and limited-use engines. (EMA) 

RESPONSE: The District appreciates the support of the commentor on 

proposed amendments. 

25. COMMENT: The District should include an alternate NOx emission standard for 

existing engines equivalent to 90% reduction from uncontrolled NOx levels. It is 

likely that some existing engines will be able to achieve the proposed emissions 

limit of 11 ppm. However, older engines were not necessarily engineered to 

work together with advanced air-fuel ration controllers and after treatment 

systems needed to meet the proposed standard. In some cases, it may be 

impossible to retrofit existing engines with the controls and after treatments 

systems to meet the 11ppm standard. Because compliance with an 11ppm 

standard is not achievable for all engines, Rule 4702 should include an 

alternative NOx standard equivalent to a 90% reduction in emissions. Such an 

option would allow owners and operators to continue to use existing engines that 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 20 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

cannot effectively meet an 11ppm NOx emission level, but may be able to add 

after treatment systems to reduce engine-out NOx by 90%. (EMA) 

RESPONSE: The District is proposing to remove the percent reduction option 

from the rule. As envisioned in the ARB RACT/BARCT for engines, the 90% 

reduction is across the emission control device and not from a theoretical 

uncontrolled emission factor. Enforcing the percent control across the control 

device would add even more cost as operators would have to install a test port 

between the engine exhaust and the control device as well as the cost of the 

additional source testing. 

26. COMMENT: More discussion regarding the cost-effectiveness of the rule is 

needed in the staff report. One aspect of the cost-effectiveness calculations is 

incorrect. Staff makes the assumption that compliance costs essentially increase 

linearly with engine size and make the comment that the some of the higher 

compliance cost estimates submitted to the District are likely associated with the 

complexity of larger engines. In fact, compliance costs for smaller, lean-burn 

engines will be relatively higher compared to much larger engines since there are 

baseline controls and systems that must be established for all engine sizes and 

then incremental costs increases as the size of catalyst beds and urea tanks are 

scaled up with engine size. Retrofit and compliance costs for operators of small 

engines will be relatively higher compared to costs associated with larger 

engines. (EMA) 

RESPONSE: Throughout the rule project, District staff has requested that 

stakeholders submit cost information to enhance the compliance cost analysis. 

The information in the cost analysis represents the data made available to 

District staff. 

27. COMMENT: Section 4.3.2 exempts engines registered in the Statewide Portable 

Equipment Registration Program (PERP) from Rule 4702 except for the 

administrative requirements in Section 6.2.3. The PERP regulation was 

amended earlier this year to reduce record-keeping requirements. PERP 

engines registered to Providers of Public Services (PEPS) now have zero recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Section 6.2.3 requires record-keeping that 

is not required by ARB PERP. This puts a record-keeping burden on our 

company that ARB recognized and rectified by removing that burden from the 

PERP regulation. PERP engine record-keeping would be required in the 

SJVAPCD only thus requiring us to differentiate the use of our PERP engines 

inside and outside the SJVAPCD. (PG&E) 

RESPONSE: Staff has researched the ARB PERP and has come to the same 

conclusion as ARB regarding these recordkeeping requirements. The Proposed 

Rule has been amended to remove the recordkeeping requirement. Please see 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 21 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

Section 4.1.6 of the Proposed Rule for new language and refer to the final draft 

staff report for the discussion. 

28. COMMENT: Remove the term “Existing” from sections 3.17 and Section 5 Table 

2. It has been demonstrated that cyclic loaded engines cannot achieve or 

maintain a high enough exhaust gas temperature to effectively make a catalyst 

operate at manufacturer’s recommended performance specifications. This issue 

is relevant whether or not the cyclic loaded engine is “new” or “existing”. (VPC) 

RESPONSE: After evaluating stakeholder comments, the suggested change 

has been made. See proposed rule for changes. 

29. COMMENT: Basing an engine type, (rich or lean-burn) with same characteristics 

cannot feasibly be done because of the design technology built into a lean-burn 

engine, which is nothing like a rich-burn. If the NOx limit for the 6 water supply 

facilities were allowed 50 ppm limit from your proposed 11 ppm, the net increase 

would be .04 tons/day. West Kern Water District is requesting that a limit of 50 

ppm be given to the water suppliers, which is the same as given to Limited Use, 

Cyclic Loaded and Waste Gas Fired IC engines. (WKWD) 

RESPONSE: Staff believes, based on the best available information to us at 

this time, that SCR controls are technologically feasible for these engines. The 

District does understand that there are costs associated with these changes and 

those costs are reflected in the cost effectiveness analysis and the 

socioeconomic analysis. Staff also feels that it is important to point out that the 

District has provided alternatives for compliance including the addition of the 

limited use category, the annual fee option, and an extended phased in 

compliance schedule. 

30. COMMENT: 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ will require lean-burn engines to meet a 

carbon monoxide emission limit which can be achieved with a much less 

expensive oxidation catalyst with minimal facility modifications. The Air District 

should hold a workshop or workshops to cover how 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ 

and Rule 4702 Phase 2 will affect industry. Cover exactly what requirements will 

be added facility wide and permit units prior to any final decision on proposed 

Rule 4702 Phase 2. Cover both Title V and Non Title V facilities. (WKWD) 

RESPONSE: This section of the CFR covers most internal combustion engines, 

not just spark-ignited ones and the carbon monoxide limit is only one of many 

possible requirements of the federal regulation. Operators with questions can 

contact the District’s Small Business Assistance Program to discuss how Rule 

4702 and Subpart ZZZZ affect their particular operation. The operator does not 

need to be a small business to utilize this service. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 22 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

31. COMMENT: Will the Air District be submitting data that assures accurate 

reduction numbers from the fees that are being collected? (WKWD) 

RESPONSE: The District operates highly successful and efficient incentive 

programs; some of which are funded by local, state, and federal grants. The 

District has required and enforced usage obligations to ensure that predicted 

emission reductions have been achieved. The District submits regular reports to 

state and federal government agencies as well as an Annual Report to the 

community that detail how funds were spent and the emission reductions 

associated with grant program projects. Recent audits by the ARB, Department 

of Finance, and the California Bureau of State Audits concurred that the District 

has a robust incentive program that is one of the best in the state. Additionally, 

several of the District practices were included as best management practices in 

the 2008 Carl Moyer Guidelines. 

32. COMMENT: Appendix B IV Emission Reduction Analysis, Your conservative 

number of 3 engines that would electrify out of 67 affected engines will offset the 

net increase in GHG emissions. Can you show how that assessment was done? 

(WKWD) 

RESPONSE: Appendix B has been revised to include language explaining this 

assessment. Please refer to Appendix B for this language. 

33. COMMENT: Appendix C IV, A 2 Lean-Burn Engines, West Kern Water District 

feels that your cost effective number is inaccurate. The Air District should have 

Staff research actual costs as well as getting information from Stakeholders. 

Anytime you force industry to install control equipment like an SCR for lean-burn 

engines as the only option, or throwing money into a pool to reduce someone 

else’s pollution when the stationary source owners have already spent so much 

money just isn’t right. It should be the responsibility of the regulator to give 

accurate cost numbers in their reports. (WKWD) 

RESPONSE: District staff has worked diligently with our Permit Services 

Department, vendors, and other stakeholders to reflect the best available 

information, including the costs submitted by the commentor and the District has 

revised Appendix C to include this new data. Please refer to Appendix C for more 

details. 

34. COMMENT: The District acknowledged that reducing NOx from lean-burn 

engines would be extremely costly since it entails installing SCR. Consequently, 

WSPA and other stakeholders have been repeatedly recommending that control 

requirements for lean-burn engines remain at the current control level. WSPA 

continues this recommendation. (WSPA, SCG) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 23 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: The District made the commitment to achieve NOx emission 

reductions from this source category, and meets this commitment by 

acknowledging that in some cases it may be costly to comply with rule standards, 

and providing alternatives for compliance. The rule has been crafted with 

different categories of engines with varying requirements, provided phased in 

compliance dates for certain engine categories, and the District has provided 

compliance options such as the annual fee payment option and the alternative 

emission control plan for certain engine types. 

35. COMMENT: Given that the reductions achieved by this rule are not committed to 

in the SIP and given the extremely high cost of the control equipment required to 

meet the proposed NOx limits, WSPA requests that the compliance timeline be 

extended to 2018 with full compliance by 2020. (WSPA, SCG) 

RESPONSE: While staff recognizes that there is not a specific NOx reduction 

commitment in the attainment plans, we are committed to obtaining emission 

reductions as expeditiously practical, technologically feasible, and economically 

reasonable. Staff feels that providing a nine year compliance schedule would be 

counterproductive to the dual path strategy adopted by our Governing Board 

during the adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan. Staff is proposing to extend the 

compliance deadline for operators with more than 12 engines until 2017. Please 

refer to the Final Draft Staff Report for further explanation of this proposal and 

refer to the Proposed Rule for the new timeline language. 

36. COMMENT: The District reports that the total annual cost to retrofit 227 engines 

is likely to range between 11.3 million and 41.3 million dollars annually. This 

information is misleading. The costs reported by the District are not the total 

costs, but is the average cost incurred each year over a ten year period. The 

actual installation cost is ten times greater than the reported costs; a range 

between 114.5 million and 414.8 million dollars. (WSPA) 

RESPONSE: The statement that the cost range provided in the cost 

effectiveness analysis is an annualized cost is a correct statement. Language 

has been added to the cost effectiveness analysis discussion and to Table 1 of 

Appendix C that clarifies that this range is an annualized number. Please see 

Appendix C for this discussion. 

37. COMMENT: The District dismisses the impacts resulting from the proposed 

controls by pointing out that the operator can pay a fee to operate the equipment. 

Given the fact that the fees will continue for the life of the equipment and source 

operators with multiple engines will pay multiple fees, the cost of the fee option 

can be prohibitive. While we support the inclusion of the fee option, we object to 

the use of such an option in an effort to dismiss the adverse economic impacts 

resulting from the adoption of draft amendments. (WSPA, SCG) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 24 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: The impacts of the proposed controls have been accounted for in 

the cost effectiveness analysis, and those impacts have been submitted to the 

economist for inclusion into the socioeconomic impact report and will be 

presented to the Governing Board as a part of the rule package. However, the 

District has crafted the proposed rule with many compliance options that can help 

mitigate the fiscal impacts to a facility, should they choose to take advantage of 

them. 

38. COMMENT: On January 10, 2008 the EPA concluded that the District Rule 4702 

satisfied federal requirements as RACM and RACT. On March 8, 2010 in their 

approval of the District Ozone Plan, EPA again concluded that existing rule 4702 

satisfies RACM and RACT. According to the District, EPA contends that an 

11ppmv NOx limit is RACT for lean-burn internal combustion engines. The EPA 

claim is based on the SCAQMD Rule 1110.2. However, within the SCAQMD, 

engines located at major stationary sources are subject to “RECLAIM” and 

operators are allowed to provide equivalent NOx reductions from other 

equipment in lieu of retrofitting engines. During the January 18, 2011 

stakeholder meeting, Mr. Gregg Arney, of the “Team Leader Gas Engineering 

and Air Quality and Compressor Services” for Sempra Energy testified that to the 

best of his knowledge not a single lean-burn engine operating in the SCAQMD 

was actually retrofit to meet an 11 ppmv NOx limit. Our understanding is that the 

District verified this information with SCAQMD. WSPA believes the EPA 

conclusion that RACT for lean-burn engines at 11 ppmv NOx is unfounded. 

(WSPA, SCG) 

RESPONSE: District staff has confirmed the NOx limits in the SCAQMD. Staff 

has also confirmed the existence of the RECLAIM program as an alternative 

compliance method. Staff would like to point out that our proposed Rule 4702 

also provides alternative options for compliance with the 11 ppmv NOx limits. 

39. COMMENT: Neither the EPA nor the District has shown the retrofit requirements 

proposed for lean-burn engines to be achieved in practice. How can the District 

support such a proposal given the fact that in the Staff Report they conclude that 

the, “... NOx limit may not be actually achieved-in-practice for many classes of 

engines.” The District has an obligation to ensure that retrofit requirements 

contained in their regulations are based on available control technology, 

demonstrated to be achieved-in-practice. Consequently WSPA is opposed to the 

proposed control requirements for lean-burn engines. We recommend the 

requirements for lean-burn engines contained in existing Rule 4702 be retained. 

11ppmv for lean burn engines has only been achieved in engines installed under 

NSR because they were engineered that way from the beginning. The controls 

are too expensive and too sophisticated and they can’t meet manufacture 

guarantee. Does any manufacturer guarantee 11 ppm for retrofit? (SCG 

(WSPA, SCG) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 25 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: While the 11 ppmvd limit may not be achievable for all lean-burn 

engines, there are many engines within the District’s boundaries that are already 

operating at or below this limit. For this reason, the proposed rule does contain a 

provision for certain lean-burn engines to have the stringent NOx limit. 

40. COMMENT: The rule has a new definition for higher heating value (hhv) which 

includes a section for source testing. This will require us to send certifications to 

each facility that the fuel meets the hhv requirements, and this could become 

onerous. Also, we use different test methods then the ASTM test methods listed 

in the rule. (SCG) 

RESPONSE: The proposed rule language does not require multiple submissions 

of the hhv of the fuel, therefore once a certification has been submitted to a 

facility it would not need to be resubmitted unless the composition of the fuel is 

changed. Also, Section 6.4 allows a provision that any other test method than 

those listed can be used as long as they are approved by the APCO and the 

EPA. This provides flexibility for operators to comply with test methods. 

41. COMMENT: EPA just disapproved the Santa Barbara engine rule. EPA’s 

reasoning behind the disapproval of that rule was because they say portable 

analyzers are good tools but they will still require a source test any time an 

exceedance is discovered with a portable analyzer. (SCG) 

RESPONSE: District staff will continue to investigate the issues that Santa 

Barbara County APCD is encountering with their engine rule and make 

amendments to our rule as appropriate. 

42. COMMENT: The SCAQMD RECLAIM program is much more flexible and less 

expensive than the fees allowed for this rule; the District should adopt the 

RECLAIM fee program instead. (SCG) 

RESPONSE: Although the South Coast RECLAIM Program (RP) appears to be 

more flexible and less expensive, there is no way to directly compare the 

program with the annual fee requirement being imposed by Rule 4702. Firstly, 

the RP is applicable to the entire facility and not specifically associated with a 

singular rule. In addition, the RP establishes RECLAIM credits based on 

historical emissions and uses a cap and trade system to govern the program. In 

fact, the money generated through the RP is only beneficial to the credit holders, 

whereas the annual fee payment program associated with Rule 4702 will be 

utilized by the District to purchase additional emissions reductions which will go 

towards attainment.

43. COMMENT: Only the voters can raise the rates, we are non-profit and cannot 

absorb the costs incurred because of this rule. The most recent rate increases 

were due to a combination of this rule and increased energy costs. (SCG) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Appendix A: Comments and Responses August 18, 2011 

A - 26 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4702

RESPONSE: The socioeconomic analysis considers the differences between 

private and public industries and includes a discussion in the report to that effect. 

Please see the socioeconomic analysis report for this discussion.