United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Air Division 

Technical Support Document 

for 

EPA’s Notice of Rulemaking 

for the 

California State Implementation Plan 

Feather River Air Quality Management District’s 

Rule 3.22, Internal Combustion Engines 

Prepared by: Idalia Pérez 

November 2011 
Page 2 of 6

Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) 

Submitted Rule 

FRAQMD Rule 3.22, Internal Combustion Engines: 

§ Adopted: June 1, 2009 

§ Submitted: January 12, 2010 

§ Determined complete: February 4, 2010 

Previous Rule Submittals 

There are no outstanding submittals of Rule 3.22. 

SIP-Approved Rule 

There is no SIP-approved version of Rule 3.22. 

Rule Summary 

FRAQMD Rule 3.22 regulates emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) from IC engines with a rated brake horse power of 50 or 

greater. 

The emission limits for the North FRAQMD are (Section D.1, Table 1): 

Engine Type NOx (ppmv) VOC CO (ppmv) 

Rich-Burn 90 250 4000 

Lean-Burn 150 750 4000 

Compression Ignited 600 750 4000 

The emission limits for the South FRAQMD are (Section D.1, Table 2): 

Engine Type NOx (ppmv) VOC CO (ppmv) 

Rich-Burn 25 250 4000 

Lean-Burn 65 750 4000 

Compression Ignited 80 750 4000 

In lieu of complying with the above limits, the engine may be replaced by electrification. 

The rule language includes exemptions (Section B), definitions (Section C), and compliance, 

testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements (Section F through H, respectively). 

Effects on Emissions 

The staff report states that there are no emission reductions due to the implementation of this rule 

because there are no engines that are subject to this rule in the nonattainment portion of the 

District. 

Rule Evaluation 

We have primarily used the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 3.22: 

1. Rule Stringency – Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires 

nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control measures 
Page 3 of 6

(RACM), including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area 

as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as practicable. In addition, ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above must require RACT for all 

major sources of NOx CAA § 182(f); 40 CFR § 51.912(a). The FRAQMD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area that is classified as a Section 185A area for 

the 1-hour ozone standard and classified as severe for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

40 C.F.R. § 81.305 (2010).1 Therefore, submitted Rule 3.22 must fulfill RACT 

requirements for NOx.

2. Enforceability – CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to 

EPA for approval into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) must be clear and 

legally enforceable. 

3. SIP Revisions – CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 

revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA section 193 prohibits the modification 

of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a 

nonattainment area.

Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific enforceability, RACT and 

RACM requirements include the following: 

• Issues Relating to VOC Regulation, Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations (the “Blue 

Book”), US EPA, OAQPS (May 25, 1988). 

• Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA 

Region IX (August 21, 2001, the “Little Bluebook”). 

• State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 

28, 1992). 

• State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule, 57 FR 

55620 (Nov. 25, 1992). 

• Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS – Phase 2, 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 25, 

2005). 

• U.S. EPA. Alternative Control Techniques Document – NOx Emissions from Stationary 

Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. EPA-453/R-93-032, July 1993 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/ozone/ctg_act/199307_nox_epa453_r-93-

032_internal_combustion_engines.pdf

 

1

FRAQMD also regulates a nonattainment area under the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). 40 C.F.R. § 81.305 (2010). By December 14, 2012, California must submit a revision to the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for this nonattainment area that provides for, among other things, implementation 

of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including RACT for existing sources). CAA § 172(a)(2)(A), (b) & 

(c)(1), 74 FR 58689 (Nov. 13, 2009). EPA will take action on this RACM demonstration in a separate rulemaking. 
Page 4 of 6

• California Air Resources Board. Determination of Reasonably Available Control 

Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Stationary Spark-Ignited 

Internal Combustion Engines. November 2001 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ractbarc/rb-iceall.pdf. 

Discussion of Rule Stringency

According to documentation submitted along with Rule 2.33, there are no major sources that are 

subject to this rule in the ozone nonattainment portion of the FRAQMD. Thus, Rule 3.22 is not 

required to meet § 182(f) RACT for NOx and at this time we are not making a determination of 

its ability to implement RACT. Nonetheless, we note that South Coast AQMD Rule 1110.2 and 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Rule 4702 have more stringent emission limits than those in 

Rule 2.33. Both Air Districts have limits of 11 ppm for rich and lean burn engines. The limits in 

SCAQMD are currently being implemented locally. The limits in SJVUAPCD have a 

compliance deadline of 2014. 

CAA §172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control 

measures, including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of RACT, as expeditiously as practicable. IC 

engines can emit direct PM2.5, as well as SOx, which is a precursor to PM2.5, and NOx, which is 

a precursor to both PM2.5 and ozone. Therefore, FRAQMD must implement RACM for IC 

engines if those measures will advance attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 or ozone, when considered collectively with other reasonable measures. 

Additional control measures may be required pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional 

measures are reasonably available; and (2) these additional reasonably available measures will 

advance attainment in the area when considered collectively. In separate rulemakings, EPA will 

take action on the State’s RACM demonstration for PM2.5 and ozone based on an evaluation of 

the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable 

attainment dates in the District. See 40 CFR §§ 51.1010, 51.912(d). Nonetheless, we note that the 

current version of Rule 3.22 does not require certain control measures for IC engines in the 

FRAQMD that appear to be "reasonably available" considering technological and economic 

feasibility, for the reasons cited above. We also note that not all of the PM2.5 nonattainment area 

is subject to the more stringent limits in the rule, which are only applicable to sources in the 

South FRAQMD. 

Discussion of Enforceability

Per §110(a) of the Act, SIP rules must be enforceable. Some of the criteria essential in practically 

enforceable rules include clear statements of applicability, specificity of the standard that must 

be met, explicit statements of compliance time frames, explicit statements of the size of exempt 

units and the length of time of exempt periods, and inclusion of record keeping requirements. We 

believe the submitted rule adequately fulfills most of the relevant criteria identified above. 

Specifically, the rule: 

• is generally clear and has clear applicability; 

• includes adequate recordkeeping and other compliance provisions; 

• has testing and compliance timeframes. 

Nonetheless, Section G.1.g includes language that undermines enforceability. 
Page 5 of 6

Specifically, Section G.1.g allows flexibility in testing by authorizing the APCO to allow 

portable analyzers to be used in lieu of source testing. The provision reads: 

The APCO may authorize the use of specific portable analyzers for the measurement of 

oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and oxygen which do not meet the requirements of 

the test methods specified in this section provided that evidence accompanies each test 

report that instrument operation conformed to manufacturer’s recommendations and that 

the instrument(s) used responded appropriately to calibration gases both before and after 

testing, and provided that measurements made by the methods specified in this section 

shall be recognized as more reliable in any dispute involving measurements made by 

different methods. Evidence of instrument response stability shall be provided if 

calibration checks are not performed at the test site immediately before and after testing. 

EPA allows the use of portable analyzers to show compliance if appropriate protocols are 

required. These protocols provide additional details for the calibration of the portable analyzers. 

Since some analyzers are not temperature controlled, their results may vary depending on the 

ambient temperature and where the pre and post-test calibration checks are performed. Examples 

of where EPA has approved the use of portable analyzers with appropriate protocols include 40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart JJJJ and South Coast AQMD Rule 1146 if using EPA's Conditional Test 

Method 030 or ASTM D6522-00 (2005). EPA has also approved portable analyzers for 

monitoring as part of regular maintenance, not compliance, with fewer requirements. Rule 3.22 

lacks the QA/QC requirement specificity for portable analyzers that is essential for their use for 

compliance determinations. In order to be fully approvable, the rule should include such 

information or specify that the portable analyzers are not intended for compliance testing. 

Additionally, the phrase: 

“... provided that measurements made by the methods specified in this section shall be 

recognized as more reliable in any dispute involving measurements made by different 

methods.” 

is unclear regarding which methods are more reliable. All appropriately chosen EPA approved 

methods are adequate to demonstrate compliance. The rule should avoid including unclear 

references regarding the relative reliability of different test methods. 

Discussion of CAA § 110(l) and 193

We propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA sections 

110(l) and 193 because submitted Rule 2.33: 

- strengthens the SIP as there is no rule for this category currently in the SIP; 

- would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP 

and attainment of the NAAQS are met; and 

- would ensure equivalent or greater emission reductions of NOx and CO than the 

current applicable SIP. 

Suggested Rule Improvements 

Although not currently basis for rule disapproval, EPA recommends that the FRAQMD lower 

emission limits in Rule 3.22 to be consistent with South Coast Rule 1110.2 (amended July 9, 

2010) and analogous rules in other areas. 
Page 6 of 6

Rule Deficiency 

Section G.1.g allows for alternate testing to demonstrate compliance that does not have sufficient 

QA/QC requirements. 

Recommendation 

EPA staff recommends a limited approval and limited disapproval of FRAQMD Rule 3.22 under 

CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). 

Other References 

1. Submitted Rule 3.22 

2. Rule 3.22 Staff Report, date of release: February 26, 2009