Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103

Davis, CA 95618

(530)757-3650

www.ysaqmd.org

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

RULE 2.3, RINGELMANN CHART

RULE 2.11, PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATION

RULE 2.12, SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS

AND REPEAL OF

RULE 2.4, EXEMPTIONS

RULE 2.7, WET PLUMES

FINAL STAFF REPORT

December 29, 2009

Prepared by: Kyle Rohlfing, Associate Air Quality Engineer

Reviewed by: Susan McLaughlin, Supervising Air Quality Engineer
Table of Contents Page

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE 2.3, 2.11, AND 2.12 AMENDMENTS . . . . . . . . . 4

III. COMPARISON TO OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS . . 6

IV. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF METHODS OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

VI. REGULATORY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2.3, RINGELMANN CHART,

RULE 2.11 PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATION, AND 2.12

SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS; STRIKE-OUT UNDERLINE VERSIONS

ATTACHMENT B NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA GUIDELINES 

ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. 10-01

ATTACHMENT D WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 3

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On January 13, 2010, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (District) Board of Director’s

will consider the proposed amendments to Rule 2.3, 2.11, and 2.12, and the recommended repeal

of Rules 2.4 and 2.7. The rules apply to any source of visible emissions and particulate emission

concentration within the District. The proposed rule amendments are the first in a series of

particulate matter regulation changes that will be developed in the next few years as part of the

State mandated “all feasible measures” requirement for air districts that do not meet the State

particulate matter standard, which includes Yolo-Solano AQMD. These revisions were identified

by the Board for future adoption during a July 2005 public hearing as required by Senate Bill (SB)

656 to adopt the list of measures for particulate matter reduction as required by California Health

and Safety Code (CH&SC) §39614.

These particular rules were identified as one of the first to be considered because compliance can

be achieved without additional emission controls. Ordinary and customary maintenance procedures

already utilized by our sources should result in compliance, as has been shown by new and

modified permit holders who have already been required to comply with these lower limits. In

addition, these proposed limits are already in place throughout much of California.

The main amendments to the rules are:

1) For Rule 2.3, Ringelmann Chart

a. visible emissions limit was lowered from that which is equal to No. 2 on the

Ringelmann Chart (40% opacity), to that which is equal to No. 1 (20%) on the

Ringelmann Chart.

b. exemptions listed in existing District Rules 2.4, Exemptions and 2.7, Wet Plumes

were incorporated into Rule 2.3.

c. new exemptions added which are consistent with exemptions contained in the

CH&SC.

2) For Rule 2.11, Particulate Matter Concentration and Rule 2.12, Specific Contaminants,

the particulate matter concentration was lowered from 0.3 grains per cubic foot of gas to

0.1 grains per cubic foot of gas. 

Minor proposed amendments include changing the format of these three rules to reflect the current

rule formatting, i.e. include an Index, add the General, Definitions, and Standards sections.

The District is also proposing the repeal of Rules 2.4, Exemptions and 2.7, Wet Plumes because

all of the listed exemptions will now appear in associated Rule 2.3.

The District does not expect the proposed rule changes to have either a significant nor a

detrimental effect on the environment. Therefore, staff has prepared a Notice of Exemption (NOE)

to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The NOE states that the

adoption of these proposed rule amendments is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant

to Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 4

A. BACKGROUND

Rule 2.3, Ringelmann Chart

The proposed amendment lowers the allowable visible emission levels of most pollution emitting

devices to Ringelmann No.1 (20% opacity) from our current limit of Ringelmann No. 2 (40%

opacity) which was adopted in 1972. The opacity percentage and Ringelmann number are

measures of the amount of light prevented from passing through a plume. Light colored plumes

such as dust from a cement silo are typically expressed in opacity while dark colored smoke

plumes are expressed as Ringelmann numbers. 

The vast majority of California businesses have been limited to 20% opacity for well over 10 years

and the proposed limit is already in place in many of the other air districts. Visible emissions of air

pollution occur as point source emissions and fugitive emissions from a wide variety of activities,

such as conveying, crushing, cutting, grinding, screening, etc. 

Rules 2.11, Particulate Matter Concentration and 2.12, Specific Contaminants

These rules limit the particulate matter concentrations that any given process may emit. Like Rule

2.3, the limits would be lowered to match those that have been in place in many other California

districts for many years.

The current rules limit the particulate matter emissions to 0.3 grain per cubic foot of gas calculated

2

to 12 percent of carbon dioxide (CO ) at standard conditions. EPA emission factors indicate that

liquid and gas-fueled boilers and gas turbines already comply with the proposed lower limit of 0.1

grain per cubic foot emission limit contained in the “all feasible measure” list.

II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS

Listed below are descriptions of the proposed amendments to:

Rule 2.3, Ringelmann Chart.

Section 100 General

Section 101 - Purpose: The purpose of this rule is to limit the emission of visible air

contaminants to the atmosphere. 

Section 102 - Applicability: This rule applies to any source operation which emits or may

emit air contaminants. 

Section 110 - Exemptions - General: This section was added to the rule to incorporate all

of the exemptions listed in the CH&SC, which includes the exemptions previously listed in

Rules 2.4 and 2.7. 

Section 111 - Exemptions - Limited: This section was added to the rule to list sources of
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 5

emissions which are not exempt from opacity standards altogether, but are subject to a less

restrictive opacity standard as listed in the CH&SC.

Section 200 Definitions

Section 201 - Definitions of abrasive blasting, carbonaceous material, obscurant, opacity,

teepee burner, and visible air contaminants have been added for rule clarity.

Section 300 Standard

Section 301.1: The previous visible emission limit to Ringelmann 2 (40% opacity) has been

retained for sources subject to the limited exemption.

Section 301.2: The rule amendment lowers the allowable visible emission limit to

Ringelmann 1 (20% opacity) for all sources nor listed under the general or limited

exemptions.

Section 400 Monitoring

Section 401 - Test Method: EPA Test Method 9 has been listed as the proper test method

to verify compliance with the rule. The rule itself does not specifically require testing of any

source. 

Rule 2.11, Particulate Matter Concentration

Section 100 General

Section 101 - Purpose: The purpose of this rule is to establish a particulate matter emission

standard. 

Section 102 - Applicability: This rule applies to any source operation which emits or may

emit dust, fumes, or total suspended particulate matter. 

Section 200 Definitions

Section 201 - A definition for particulate matter has been added for rule clarity.

Section 300 Standard

Section 301 - Requirement: The rule amendment lowers the allowable particulate matter

emission limit to 0.1 grains per cubic foot of gas at dry standard conditions.

Section 400 Monitoring

Section 401 - Test Methods: Applicable EPA and CARB test methods have been listed for

determination of exhaust stack gas velocity, exhaust stack gas moisture, and particulate

matter emissions, which may be needed to determine compliance with the rule standard.
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 6

The rule does not specifically require testing of any source. 

Rule 2.12, Specific Contaminants

Section 100 General

Section 101 - Purpose: The purpose of this rule is to establish particulate matter and sulfur

compound emission standards. 

Section 102 - Applicability: This rule applies to any source operation which emits or may

emit gaseous sulfur compounds and combustion contaminants.

Section 110 - Exemptions: The provisions of this rule do not apply to the start of an

operation or change in energy source, or during the time necessary to bring the combustion

process up to the operating level..

Section 200 Definitions

Section 201 - A definition for combustion contaminants has been added for rule clarity.

Section 300 Standard

Section 301 - Requirement: The rule amendment lowers the allowable combustion

contaminant emission limit to 0.1 grains per cubic foot of gas at dry standard conditions.

Section 400 Monitoring

Section 401 2 - Compliance Determination: A statement declaring that the CO produced

from combustion of any liquid or gaseous fuels shall be excluded from the calculation to 12

pe 2rcent of CO when measuring combustion contaminants from incinerators used to

dispose of combustible refuse by burning has been moved from the standard section of the

rule to the monitoring section.

Section 402 - Test Methods: Applicable EPA and CARB test methods have been listed for

determination of exhaust stack gas velocity, exhaust stack gas moisture, and particulate

matter emissions, which may be needed to determine compliance with the rule standard.

The rule does not specifically require testing of any source. 

III. COMPARISON TO OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

CH&SC Section 40727.2 requires districts to perform a comparative alternative analysis of

any new control standard. Specifically, the District is required to prepare a written analysis

that identifies all existing federal air pollution control requirements including, but not limited

to, emission control standards constituting best available control technology (BACT) that

applies to the same equipment or source type as the rule or regulation proposed for

adoption or modification by the District. In addition, the analysis shall identify any other
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 7

District rule or regulation that applies to the same equipment or source type. The analysis

shall compare the following specific elements:

Existing BACT Requirements

The standards of all three of these rules are meant to apply generally to sources of visible

emissions and gaseous sulfur compounds/particulate matter combustion contaminants and

are not limited to any specific equipment or source type. Although there are many

standards for specific source types in federal regulations, the District is unaware of any

existing federal emission control standards constituting BACT which can be applied

generally.

Comparison with State Requirements

CH&SC § 41701 sets a general standard that visible emissions from any source shall not

be as dark or darker in shade as that designated as No. 2 on the Ringelmann Chart for a

period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour. This is the same

standard as that of the existing Rule 2.3 which the District is proposing to revise to a lower

acceptable standard. The District believes that establishing a lower standard may aid in

reaching and/or maintaining attainment status for criteria pollutants and may also lead to

reductions in the emissions of toxic air contaminants. The CH&SC section does not prohibit

the District from establishing a more stringent standard for visible emissions opacity except

for specific sources of emissions, for which exceptions have been included in the

amendments. 

IV. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Emissions Impacts

Visible emissions and combustion air contaminants are emitted in the form of smoke or dust

as point source emissions or fugitive emissions from a wide variety of activities. For many

of these sources, reductions in criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions should

result from ordinary and customary maintenance procedures. Under the authority of District

Rule 3.4 (New Source Review) the District has already been applying the proposed lower

standards to any new or modified permitted source for some time so any emissions

reductions would come from sources which have not modified a Permit to Operate (PTO)

for a long period or sources which have not obtained a valid PTO. 

Cost Effectiveness

CH&SC Section 40703 requires the District, in the process of the adoption of any

regulation, to consider and make public its findings related to the cost effectiveness of a

control measure. Cost effectiveness for rulemaking purposes is calculated by dividing the

cost of air pollution controls required by the rule by the amount of air pollution reduced.

As discussed above, the proposed standards should be achievable through ordinary

operation and maintenance procedures, therefore there are no costs of compliance
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 8

expected and cost effectiveness evaluations are not required.

Socioeconomic Impacts

CH&SC Section 40728.5 (a) requires the District, in the process of the adoption of any rule

or regulation, to consider the socioeconomic impact if air quality or emission limits may be

significantly affected. However, districts with a population of less than 500,000 persons are

exempt from the provisions of Section 40728.5 (a). The District’s population is estimated

to be approximately 325,000 and well below the 500,000 person threshold. Therefore,

socioeconomic analyses for this rulemaking are not required. 

Incremental Cost Effectiveness

CH&SC Section 40920.6 requires an assessment of the incremental cost-effectiveness for

proposed regulations relative to ozone, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SOx),

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), and their precursors. Incremental cost-effectiveness is defined as

the difference in control costs divided by the difference in emission reductions between two

potential control options that can achieve the same emission reduction goal of a regulation.

There are no costs of compliance expected for compliance with these proposed rules

standards therefore incremental cost effectiveness evaluations are not required.

Impacts to the District

The District has already been requiring the lower standards from many permitted sources

under the authority of Rule 3.4, therefore the proposed amendments will have little to no

impact on staff workload. It is expected that any additional work load can be absorbed

within the District’s Engineering Division.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF METHODS OF COMPLIANCE

California Public Resource Code Section 21159 requires the District (at the time of adopting

a rule requiring the installation of pollution control equipment, or a performance standard)

to perform an environmental analysis of the reasonably foreseeable methods of

compliance. The analysis must include the following information for the proposed

amendments to Rule 2.3, 2.11, and 2.12:

a. An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods

of compliance.

b. An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures.

c. An analysis of the reasonably foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the

rule or regulation.

Table 1 lists all reasonably foreseeable compliance methods, the environmental impacts
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 9

of those methods, and measures that could be used to mitigate the environmental impacts.

TABLE 1. Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Alternatives

Compliance

Methods

Reasonably Foreseeable

Environmental Impacts

Reasonably Foreseeable

Mitigation Measures

1. Switch to

alternate fuel.

2. Installation of

control equipment

(cyclone,

baghouse, wet

scrubber, etc.)

3. Use of water or

chemical

suppressant

sprays

4. Alternate

operational

practices

(adjusting air/fuel

mixture, altering

airflow rate, etc.)

Air Quality Impacts: Potentially

decreased air pollution emissions.

Adoption of water conservation

policies to mitigate increased use

of water for water spray

suppression, if different from

existing practices.

Hazardous waste disposal

program necessary for disposal of

toxic solid waste generated with

use of control equipment.

Water Impacts: Increased use of

water for water spray suppression.

Human Health Impacts: Potential

decrease in emissions of toxic air

contaminants resulting in improved

human health in the District.

Solid Waste Disposal Impacts:

Increased generation of solid waste

with use of control equipment.

This analysis demonstrates the adoption of amendments to Rule 2.3, 2.11, and 2.12 will

not have a significant effect on the environment or humans due to unusual circumstances.

In addition, these amendments to the proposed rules are an action taken to protect the

environment. Therefore, staff have determined that the project is categorically exempt from

the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section

15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. Staff prepared

a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to meet the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment B).

VI. REGULATORY FINDINGS

Section 40727(a) of the CH&SC requires that prior to adopting or amending a rule or

regulation, an air district’s board make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency,

nonduplication, and reference. The findings must be based on the following:

1. Information presented in the District’s written analysis, prepared pursuant to CH&SC

Section 40727.2;

2. Information contained in the rulemaking records pursuant to CH&SC Section 40728;
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 10

and

3. Relevant information presented at the Board’s hearing for adoption of the rule.

The required findings are:

Necessity: The rule amendment is required in order to meet the state’s Best Available

Retrofit Control Technology requirements (section 40919(a)(3) of the CH&SC) and to fulfill

the District’s Senate Bill (SB) 656 commitment. (CH&SC Section 40727 (b)(1)).

Authority: The District is authorized to adopt rules and regulations by CH&SC, Sections

40001, 40702, 40716, 41010 and 41013.

Clarity: District staff have reviewed the proposed rule amendments and determined that

they can be easily understood by the affected sources. In addition, the record contains no

evidence that persons directly affected by the rules cannot understand the rules. (CH&SC

Section 40727(b)(3)).

Consistency: The proposed rule amendments do not conflict with and are not contradictory

to, existing statutes, court decisions, or state or federal regulations. (CH&SC Section

40727(b)(4)).

Non-Duplication: The proposed rule amendments do not duplicate any state laws or

regulations, regarding the attainment and maintenance of state and federal air quality limits.

(CH&SC Section 40727(b)(5)).

Reference: The District must refer to any statute, court decision, or other provision of law

that the District implements, interprets, or makes specific by adopting, amending or

repealing rules.

VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

Staff held a public workshop on October 9, 2009, to discuss the proposed amendments to

Rule 2.3, 2.11, and 2.12. Notification was sent to surrounding Air Districts, City Managers

within the District, building/planning/community development departments within the District,

all city and county libraries within the District, all Board members, and all permitted sources.

The workshop notice was published in the Vacaville Reporter (10/2), the Dixon Tribune

(10/2), the Daily Democrat (10/2), the Davis Enterprise (10/2), the West Sacramento Press

(10/7), and the Winters Express (10/8).

A copy of the public workshop notice, the draft staff report, and the proposed draft rule

language for each affected rule, were posted on the District’s web page. In response to the

notice and workshop, the District received the following comments:

A. Public Workshop:

John Killey, the environmental specialist of Agrium U.S. Inc., was the only attendant at the

public workshop. District staff will attempt to paraphrase the comments that were received
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 11

during the workshop.

Comment 1. Mr. Killey stated that manyAgrium permits already require particulate matter

emissions be much less than the proposed emission limit of Rules 2.11 and

2.12.

Response 1. No changes to the proposed rule amendments will be made due to the

comment.

Comment 2. Mr. Killey asked for confirmation of the new opacity standard, but did not

voice any concern that Agrium could not comply with the lower opacity limit.

Response 2. Many Agrium permits are currently subject to the 40% opacity standard, but

some permits (and portions or certain permitted operations) are currently

limited to opacities of lower than 20% by federal regulations. The proposed

rule revisions would lower the 40% standard to 20%, but the current limits

which are lower than 20% will not change.

Comment 3. Mr. Killey asked about exemptions from the opacity standard proposed for

the amendment to Rule 2.3. He asked if the exemption for smoke from fires

set or authorized by public officers for instruction in the methods of fighting

fires would apply to Agrium. This exemption was one of several

incorporated from the CH&SC.

Response 3. A typographical error resulted in such fires set on property used for

industrial purposes being exempted for training of public employees when

the exemption should have be written for employees in general. The

proposed rule amendment language has been edited to make this

correction.

Comment 4. Mr. Killey stated no objection to the format changes of all three rules to

make their formats consistent with more modern District rules.

Response 4. No changes to the proposed rule amendments will be made due to the

comment.

B. Written Comments:

Andrew Steckel of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued

written comments via email on October 23, 2009. The comments and District

responses are listed below:

Comment 5. Mr. Steckel suggested that the exemption to the new opacity standard

applied to smoke from fires set or permitted by any public officer on property

used for industrial purposes for training in the method of fighting fires was

meant to read for the purpose of training employees in general rather than

training public employees.
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 12

Response 5. The exemption has been edited in the proposed rule amendment language

to mention employees rather than public employees.

Comment 6. Mr. Steckel commented that exemptions of sections 110.1d and 110.1e of

the Draft Rule 2.3 amendment concerning setting of fires for firefighting

reasons appeared redundant to the exemption of section 110.1a of the rule.

Response 6. The District agrees and has deleted the mentioned sections from the rule

language.

Comment 7. Mr. Steckel commented that the exemption of section 110.1f of the Draft

Rule 2.3 amendment concerning smoke from fires set for disease or pest

prevention was not in similar rules from other air districts and seemed to be

instead an agricultural burning requirement consideration.

Response 7. The District contends this exemption already existed in District Rule 2.4. No

change has been made to this portion of the proposed amendment.

Comment 8. Mr. Steckel requested that the exemption of section 110.1g of the Draft Rule

2.3 amendment concerning smoke from fires set for remediation of an oil

spill be removed or the District explain why it would not be considered a

relaxation of a restriction.

Response 8. The District contends this exemption, incorporated from the CH&SC, is

already a part of state law. No change has been made to this portion of the

proposed amendment.

Comment 9. Mr. Steckel requested that the exemption of section 110.2 of the Draft Rule

2.3 amendment concerning orchard and citrus grove heaters be rewritten to

state the relevant conditions of the CH&SC rather than reference them.

Response 9. The exemption has been edited to directly state the requirements for

orchard and citrus grove heaters.

Comment 10. Mr. Steckel requested that the exemption of section 110.10 of the Draft Rule

2.3 amendment concerning abrasive blasting be removed or the District

explain why it would not be considered a relaxation of a restriction.

Response 10. The section of the CH&SC relating to abrasive blasting lists a 40% opacity

condition for abrasive blasting conducted outside a permanent building. The

District added the 40% opacity requirement to the standard section of the

proposed rule amendment language and specifically tied such abrasive

blasting to this opacity standard.

Comment 11. Mr. Steckel commented that the District is prohibited from establishing more

stringent restrictions on visible emissions from diesel auxiliary engines used

exclusively with drinking water systems.
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 13

Response 11. The exemption of section 110.12 of the Draft Rule 2.3 amendment has been

stricken and section 111.3 of the Proposed Rule 2.3 amendment ties the

operation of such engines to the 40% opacity requirement.

Comment 12. Mr. Steckel questioned the exemptions from the opacity standard granted

to teepee burners and burners used to produce energy and fired by forestry

and agricultural residues. 

Response 12. The District has stricken sections 110.14 and 110.15 of the Draft Rule 2.3

amendment and has rewritten the exemptions into section 110.11 of the

Proposed Rule 2.3 amendment to be more consistent with rules from other

air districts.

Comment 13. Mr. Steckel requested that the Rule 2.3 amendment contain definitions for

visible air contaminants, obscurant, teepee burner, and abrasive blasting.

Response 13. These definitions and a definition of carbonaceous relating to the

exemptions of orchard and citrus grove heaters has been added to the

Proposed Rule 2.3 amendment language.

Comment 14. Mr. Steckel requested that EPA Method 9 be listed for the determination of

opacity of emissions.

Response 14. A Method 9 reference has been added to the Proposed Rule 2.3

amendment language.

Comment 15. Mr. Steckel requested the District make clear in State Implementation Plan

submittal documents that the Rules 2.4 and 2.7 are being rescinded

because their conditions have been incorporated into Rule 2.3.

Response 15. The District will make the reasons for the rescinding of Rule 2.4 and 2.7

clear.

Comment 16. Mr. Steckel noted a misspelling of particulate in the Draft Rule 2.11

amendment language.

Response 16. The misspelling has been corrected in the Proposed Rule 2.11 language.

Comment 17. Mr. Steckel requested that EPA test methods for determination of exhaust

stack gas velocity, stack gas moisture content, and particulate matter

emissions be referenced in the rule language.

Response 17. The Proposed Rule 2.11 amendment language has been edited to reference

the relevant EPA and CARB test methods.

Comment 18. Mr. Steckel requested consistency in spelling of sulfur in Rule 2.12.
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

Page 14

Response 18. Proposed Rule 2.12 amendment language has been edited to make this

change.

Comment 19. Mr. Steckel commented that the exemptions of section 110 of the Draft Rule

2.12 amendment do not appear in similar rules from other air districts and

requested a change consistent with EPA policy.

Response 19. The exemptions from the rule already existed in original text of the rule.

This rule revision simply places the language in separate exemption section

in the rule format. No changes will be made due to this comment.

Comment 20. Mr. Steckel requested that the requirement relating or sulfur dioxide in the

Draft Rule 2.12 amendment language be changed to sulfur compounds

calculated as sulfur dioxide.

Response 20. The Proposed Rule 2.12 amendment language has been edited to make

this change.

Comment 21. Mr. Steckel requested that the title particulate matter combustion 

contaminants be edited to simply combustion contaminants.

Response 21. The edit has been made to the Proposed Rule 2.12 amendment language.

Comment 22. Mr. Steckel requested that EPA test methods for determination of exhaust

stack gas velocity, stack gas moisture content, particulate matter emissions,

and sulfur compounds concentration be referenced in the rule language.

Response 22. The Proposed Rule 2.12 amendment language has been edited to reference

the relevant EPA and CARB test methods.

Subsequent to holding the public workshop and addressing the received comments, staff

prepared a public hearing notice for the hearing which was to be held December 9, 2009.

The notice was sent to all the same parties which received the public workshop notice. The

hearing notice was published in the Daily Democrat (11/11), Vacaville Reporter (11/12),

Davis Enterprise (11/12), the Winters Express (11/12), the Dixon Tribune (11/13), and the

West Sacramento Press (11/18).

Because the above referenced notice dates did not meet 30 days for a December 9

hearing, the rule was delayed until the January meeting and the public hearing was renoticed in the Daily Democrat (12/07), Vacaville Reporter (12/05), Davis Enterprise (12/04),

the Winters Express (12/10), the Dixon Tribune (12/06), and the West Sacramento Press

(12/09). A copy of the updated documents (the proposed staff report and proposed rule

language) were posted on the District’s webpage on December 3. The District received no

more comments as a result of the additional notice.
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

ATTACHMENT A

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2.3, RINGELMANN CHART,

RULE 2.11, PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATION,

RULE 2.12, SPECIFIC CONTAMINANTS;

STRIKE-OUT UNDERLINE VERSION
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

ATTACHMENT B

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA GUIDELINES
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

ATTACHMENT C

RESOLUTION NO. 10-01
Final Staff Report - Rule 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.11, & 2.12 December 29, 2009

ATTACHMENT D

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED