SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

APPENDIX A

Comments and Responses for 

Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation & Storage Tanks)

December 15, 2005
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS ON 

PROPOSED RULE 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks)

Dated November 17, 2005

EPA Comments:

1. Comment: EPA appreciates District efforts to create requirements that reduce 

emissions from wineries while considering industry's technical 

concerns. The Agency is aware of considerations leading the 

District to develop this rule format and adoption schedule and 

believes that a prohibitory rule could significantly reduce emissions 

from the wine industry. Because of the adoption schedule, 

however, EPA has not been able to resolve all the approvability 

concerns. Instead, EPA looks forward to continued dialogue with 

the District to further strengthen the rule requirements and technical 

support before rule implementation.

Response: Rule 4694 will be the first rule, in the world, to require reductions in 

wine fermentation emissions. District staff appreciates the EPA 

consideration of the complexities of obtaining emission reductions 

from this source category. Staff is also considerate of the 

precedent setting nature of the rule. Staff believes that the 

appropriate technical information supporting RACT determination 

has been considered and is included in the staff report. The District 

is committed to working with the EPA to resolve all approvability 

issues.

2. Comment: (RACT Issues) - Because few air pollution requirements have been 

adopted elsewhere for the wine industry, SJVUAPCD has not been 

able to rely on technical information collected by other agencies in 

determining Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) in 

San Joaquin Valley. While the District has worked extensively with 

the local industry, the draft staff report does not contain all 

information necessary to demonstrate that the rule implements 

RACT. The analysis of RACT should systematically consider all 

possible controls for the sources and explain why rejected controls 

are technically and/or economically unreasonable to require. EPA 

is available to continue working with the District in this regard. (The 

comment included a list of information that the EPA would like to 

see included in a future RACT analysis).

Response: As stated in Response to Comment 1, the District is aware of the 

precedence setting nature of the rule and will continue to work with 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

EPA to address technical issues associated with establishing RACT 

for the source category. The process of establishing RACT, 

however, should not delay adoption or implementation of the rule.

3. Comment: (EIP Issues) – EPA’s October 24th comment letter listed several 

components of draft Rule 4694 that appeared inconsistent with 

national guidance on economic incentive programs (EIPs). The 

Agency appreciates the District's efforts to address these concerns

and looks forward to working with the District further to resolve 

them, as well as to address additional issues raised by the current 

draft of Rule 4694.

Response: The District is committed to working with the EPA to address 

concerns with respect to the EIP guidance document and to 

collaboratively improve the success of the proposed program. 

ARB Comment:

No comments were received

Stakeholder Comment:

Stakeholders sending written comments:

The Wine Institute (TWI)

1. Comment: Section 3.3 (Definition Baseline Fermentation Emissions) –

Language is proposed that would clarify that operators can 

voluntarily establish Baseline Fermentation Emissions at a level 

higher than calculated, using the baseline period. (TWI)

Response: The request is consistent with the District’s intent. Clarifying 

language has been added.

2. Comment: Section 3.3.3 (Definition Baseline Fermentation Emissions) –

Language is proposed that would clarify that the reference to a 

winery’s Permit to Operate is specific to the facility’s potential to 

emit fermentation VOC emissions. (TWI)

Response: The request is consistent with the District’s intent. Clarifying 

language has been added.

3. Comment: Section 3.16 (Definition Fermentation Emission Reduction) – This 

section requires emission reductions to be calculated on a per 

batch basis. Language is proposed that would allow emissions to 

be calculated using total wine throughput. (TWI)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

Response: Calculating emissions using total wine throughput would achieve 

the same result, and could simply recordkeeping. The definition 

has been modified.

4. Comment: Section 3.30 (Definition Time of Use) – A request is made to define 

Time of Use as when an emission reduction activity is submitted to 

the District, versus when the operator’s plan is approved by the 

District. (TWI)

Response: Use of an objective date that is within the control of the operator is 

consistent with the District’s intent. However, the operator has the 

responsibility of ensuring that the plan is received by the District. 

The definition has been revised to establish Time of Use as the 

date the District receives the operator’s plan.

5. Comment: Section 6.1 (Three-Year Compliance Plan) – A request is made to 

establish the compliance date for submitting a Three-year 

Compliance Plan to at least 180 days after the effective date of 

unconditional approval of this rule by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (US EPA). (TWI)

Response: The state and federal approval process can be lengthy, thus the 

District does not delay implementation of adopted rules until the US 

EPA has issued an unconditional approval. To do so would result 

in unnecessary and unacceptable delays in improving air quality. 

District staff is supportive however, of industry’s request to make 

changes to certain administrative compliance dates, providing more 

time for planning and demonstrating compliance. Please see the 

proposed rule for details. It should be noted that the proposed 

changes in compliance dates are for administrative provisions only. 

No changes are made in compliance dates affecting when emission 

reductions are to occur, or fee payments are to be received.

6. Comment: Section 6.1.5.2 (Certified Emission Reductions) – A request is 

made to add language that states that a CER retains it surplus 

status if achieved reductions are in “substantial compliance” with 

the Three-year Compliance plan. (TWI)

Response: The phrase “substantial compliance” is vague, open to 

interpretation, and would not provide clear guidance for operators. 

Staff does not support the proposed language.

7. Comment: Section 6.1.5.2.1 (Certified Emission Reductions) – A request is 

made to add language that states CER from area sources shall 

have emission reduction duration in perpetuity provided that the 

CER remains committed within any operator’s three-year 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

compliance plan and the CER is achieved in substantial compliance 

with the plan. (TWI)

Response: The existing language does not limit the emission reduction 

duration of any CER, provided the CER remains committed within 

any operator’s plan and the CER is achieved consistent with the 

plan. The proposed language is not necessary and is not 

supported by staff.

8. Comment: Section 6.1.5.2.2 (Certified Emission Reductions) – A request is 

made to replace the phrase “looses CER status for any reason”, 

with the phrase “ no longer qualifies as a CER because it ceases to 

be included in any operator’s Three-year Compliance Plan or the 

CER is not achieved in substantial compliance with the plan”. 

(TWI)

Response: The proposed language would limit resubmission of emission 

reduction activities to only CER that lost their CER status because 

of the two conditions identified in the proposed language. It is not 

the District’s intent to be this restrictive. Staff does not support the 

proposed change.

9. Comment: Section 6.1.5.3.5 (DOER Payments) – A request is made to clarify 

that DOER fees paid by an operator are not subject to change 

during the entire applicable compliance period. (TWI)

Response: DOER payments are made at the beginning of the Three-year 

Compliance Plan and are in an amount sufficient to cover the entire 

duration of the plan. Thus, the fee rate would not change for 

emission reductions paid for in advance. It is conceivable that 

because of emission reduction shortfalls, an operator may 

voluntarily request additional DOERs. Those DOERs would be 

acquired at the prevailing rate, as determined by the annual fee 

review process. The request is not supported.

10. Comment: A request is made to include language that states that Rule 4694 is 

to be considered a unitary whole, such that any partial approval or 

partial disapproval would substantially change the intent of the 

remaining provisions from what the District had intended. In that 

event, the entire rule should be treated as disapproved and invalid.

Response: The proposed language is in conflict with District Rule 1130 

(Severability). Staff does not support the proposed language.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

Appendix A: Comments and Responses for Rule 4694 December 15, 2005

A-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices 

For Revised Proposed Rule 4694

This page intentionally blank