STAFF REPORT

Rule 3.22: Stationary Internal Combustion Engines

Date of Release: August 22, 2014

Schedule of Meetings

Public Hearing: October 6, 2014

Feather River AQMD

1007 Live Oak Blvd, Suite B-3,

Yuba City, California 95991
Table of Contents

Contents Page 

1. Executive Summary...........................................................................................1

2. Background........................................................................................................1

3. Legal Mandate ...................................................................................................2

4. Proposed Rule Requirements.............................................................................2

5. Socioeconomic Impact.......................................................................................3

6. Impacts of the Proposed Rule ............................................................................4

7. Estimated Cost Impact .......................................................................................4

8. Environmental Review and Compliance ...........................................................4

9. Required Findings..............................................................................................5

10. Rule Analysis.....................................................................................................6
Proposed Rule: 3.22 August 22, 2014 

1.0 Executive Summary:

Feather River Air Quality Management District (District) is a Bi-County agency that administers local, 

state, and federal air quality management programs for Yuba and Sutter Counties. Under the provisions of 

the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988, Yuba County and the northern portion of Sutter County 

have been designated as “nonattainment-transitional” for failing to meet the state ozone standard. The 

southern portion of Sutter County is designated as “severe” nonattainment for failing to meet the state 

ozone standard.

Ozone is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react with nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the 

presence of sunlight, and is one component of smog. It is a strong irritant that attacks the respiratory 

system and leads to the damage of lung tissues. Exposure to ozone aggravates asthma, bronchitis and 

other respiratory diseases, as well as cardiovascular diseases. VOC reductions are necessary to attain and 

maintain the state ambient air quality standard for ozone.

Because portions of the District have been designated as nonattainment for failure to meet the federal 8-

hour ground-level ozone standard, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) requires 

the District to implement measures to reduce ozone precursors. The District has committed to implement 

control measures and reduce pollution through the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is federally 

enforceable through the US EPA and the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

District Rule 3.22, Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, was adopted on June 1, 2009 and it primarily 

affects the prime natural gas compressor engines which are used at the natural gas well sites in Sutter and 

Meridian. For the 2014 amendments, the District proposes to address some of the deficiencies that were 

identified by the US EPA during the SIP review process. Also, the District proposes to allow EPA 

Method 18 as a potential method for source testing VOC.

2.0 Background:

Stationary Internal Combustion Engines are typically used as either primary or backup engines to 

generate electricity or power pumps and compressors. These engines may be fueled by diesel, natural gas, 

propane (LPG), refinery fuel gas, digester gas, or landfill gas. Some final products of combustion include 

NOx, VOCs, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5), which are all discharged into 

the atmosphere. NOx and VOCs are recognized as precursors to ground-level ozone formation, and 

reductions in NOx and VOC are necessary to attain and maintain the state ambient air quality standard for 

ozone. Ozone can result in reduced lung function, increased respiratory symptoms, increased airway 

hyperactivity, and increased airway inflammation. Emissions of VOCs also react in the atmosphere to 

form PM10 and PM2.5. Inhalation of PM10 and PM2.5 deep into the lungs reduces human pulmonary 

function.

Staff originally adopted Rule 3.22 in 2009 to achieve reasonable emission reductions from internal 

combustion engines to help attain the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone and 

particulate matter. The rule was consistent among the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin Districts, 

where emission standards are based on the CARB’s document Determination of Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) For Stationary 

Spark-Ignited Combustion Engines [November 2001]. 

The District submitted Rule 3.22 to the SIP, and on March 1, 2012, the US EPA finalized a Limited 

Approval Limited Disapproval for the rule. The US EPA could not fully approve the rule because one 

section allowed for alternate testing procedures for NOx analyzers to be approved by the APCO. The 

EPA noted that this section did not have sufficient QA/QC requirements.

- 1 -
Proposed Rule: 3.22 August 22, 2014 

3.0 Legal Mandate:

Federal Mandate

In 2004, EPA designated the Sacramento region as one of the nation’s four worst 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. This region, called the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA), includes 

all of Sacramento and Yolo counties and portions of Placer, El Dorado, Solano, and Sutter counties. 

Federal law and regulations set specific planning requirements for adopting and implementing a plan to 

meet reasonable further progress goals and demonstrate attainment of the 1997 federal ozone standard as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than our attainment deadline. This State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) contains a list of control measures which will help the area meet CAA planning requirements for the 

1997 health based standards for 8-hour ozone. Rule 3.22 was included on the list as a feasible control 

measure.

State Mandate

The California Clean Air Act requires areas designated as nonattainment for ozone to develop a plan, in 

accordance with California Health and Safety (CH&S) Code §40913, to achieve California’s ambient air 

quality standard by the earliest practical date by adopting cost-effective control measures.

The SFNA portion of Sutter County is designated as “severe” nonattainment for the state ozone standard. 

CH&S Code §40920 requires the District to adopt a control measure that will use Best Available Retrofit 

Control Technology (BARCT) for all existing stationary sources in this area. BARCT, as defined in the 

CH&S, is as “an emission limitation that is based on the maximum degree of reduction achievable, taking 

into account environmental, energy and economical impacts by each class or category of source.

Yuba County and the northern area of Sutter County are designated as “nonattainment-transitional” for 

the state ozone standard. CH&S Code §40925.5 requires the District to adopt a control measure that will 

use RACT for all existing stationary sources in these areas. 

All Feasible Measures Requirements

CH&S Code §40914 requires the District’s demonstrate that the plan includes “every feasible measure" to 

control emissions. All feasible control measures are those which have the most effective regulatory 

emissions standards demonstrated in California’s air districts. 

4.0 Proposed Rule Requirements:

Table 1 below summarizes the proposed rulemaking by section:

Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Amendments

SECTION NUMBER PROPOSED LANGUAGE

Section C

Removed definitions for “New Engine” and “Existing Engine” as they were 

somewhat unclear. Added a new definition for “Date of Initial Start-up” to 

clarify the timeline requirements.

Section D Removed timeline and electrification provisions since the dates are no longer 

applicable.

Section E Added language to allow for EPA Method 18 as an acceptable VOC test 

method.

Section E Removed section on APCO approving specific portable analyzers.

Rule 3.22 - All Minor formatting and editing.

- 2 -
Proposed Rule: 3.22 August 22, 2014 

Limited Approval Limited Disapproval – NOx analyzers:

The District proposes to correct the deficiency as identified by the US EPA in the Limited Approval 

Limited Disapproval. The language allowing for alternative NOx analyzers, as approved by the APCO, 

has been completely stricken from the rule. The District does not anticipate this provision to affect the 

regulated community because it hasn’t been used in the 5 years since rule adoption.

EPA Method 18:

During the last few years of rule implementation, the District has witnessed various source tests on 

internal combustion engines. Many source testing companies have requested to perform EPA Method 18 

to quantify the VOC emission concentrations from the engine. EPA Method 18 consists of taking tedlar 

bag samples of the engine exhaust and keeping it protected until it can be transmitted to a certified 

laboratory to perform VOC speciation tests by Gas Chromatography. The exempt VOCs are identified, 

such as methane and ethane, and the total non-exempt VOCs are calculated. EPA Method 18 is generally 

used to quantify emissions from well-characterized sources, such engines, since the lab knows the main 

compounds to test for.

The District did not specifically address EPA Method 18 as a valid test method in the 2009 rule. The rule 

currently allows for CARB Method 100, EPA Method 25A, or EPA Method 25B, which was the exact 

language in CARB’s document Determination of RACT/BARCT for Stationary Spark-Ignited 

Combustion Engines [November 2001].

CARB Method 100, EPA Method 25A, and 25B rely on taking continuous measurements of the engine 

exhaust and analyzing them concurrently in the source testing van. The issue with these methods is that 

they use Flame Ionization Detectors (FID) or Photo Ionization Detectors (PID) which measure the Total 

Hydrocarbons in the exhaust, including all exempt compounds. To obtain an accurate VOC measurement, 

Method 18 would still need to be used to determine the methane and ethane concentrations, as well as the 

formaldehyde concentration which isn’t analyzed by the aforementioned 3 methods.

Many other Air Districts with SIP approved engine rules have EPA Method 18 listed as a valid test 

method. Furthermore, the CARB RACT/BARCT document lists “Alternative test methods which are 

shown to accurately determine the concentration of NOx, VOC, and CO in the exhaust of IC engines may 

be used upon the written approval of the Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board and the 

Air Pollution Control Officer.” Hence, the District proposes to add EPA Method 18 as an available 

method at this time.

5.0 Socioeconomic Impact:

California Health and Safety Code §40728.5 requires, in part, that:

“Whenever a district intends to propose the adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule or 

regulation that will significantly affect air quality or emissions limitations, that agency 

shall, to the extent that data are available, perform an assessment of the socioeconomic 

impacts of the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the rule or regulation.”

However, districts with a population of less than 500,000 persons are exempt from the provisions of 

CH&S §40728.5 (a). The District’s population is estimated to be approximately 168,000, which is below 

the 500,000 person threshold. Therefore, a socioeconomic analysis for this rulemaking is not required.

- 3 -
Proposed Rule: 3.22 August 22, 2014 

6.0 Emission Impacts of the Proposed Rule:

The District does not anticipate any emission impacts from the proposed rule.

7.0 Estimated Cost Impact:

CH&SC §40703 requires the District, in the process of the adoption of any rule or regulation, to consider 

and make public its findings related to the cost effectiveness of the rule. 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. 

The District does not anticipate any cost impacts from the proposed rule or any additional need for staff 

resources upon adoption of the rule.

8.0 Environmental Review and 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. This rule does not require 

installation of control equipment or a performance standard; therefore, the analysis is not required.

This rule is an administrative rule and the proposed amendments will not result in a direct or reasonably

foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, staff has determined that the project is 

exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA 

Guidelines.

- 4 -
Proposed Rule: 3.22 August 22, 2014 

9.0 Required Findings:

California Health and Safety Code §40727(a) requires that prior to adopting or amending a rule or 

regulation, an air district’s board must 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&S §40727.2;

2. Information contained in the rulemaking records pursuant to CH&S §40728; and

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

The table below describes each finding and the basis for making the finding:

REQUIRED FINDING FINDING DETERMINATION

Necessity: 

The District must find that the rulemaking 

demonstrates a need exists for the rule or for its 

amendment or repeal. [CH&S §40727 (b)(1)]

It is necessary for the District to adopt the 

proposed amendments in order to correct 

deficiencies found by the EPA during the SIP 

approval process.

Authority: 

The District must find that a provision of law or of 

a state or federal regulation permits or requires the 

District to adopt, amend, or repeal the rule. 

[CH&S §47027(b)(2)]

The District is authorized to adopt rules and 

regulations by CH&S §40001, 40702, 40919, 

41010, and 42300.

Clarity: 

The District must find that the rule is written or 

displayed so that its meaning can be easily 

understood by the persons directly affected by it. 

[CH&S §40727(b)(3)]

The District has reviewed the proposed 

amendments and determined that they can be 

easily understood by the affected industry. In 

addition, the record contains no evidence that the 

persons directly affected by the rule cannot 

understand the rule.

Consistency: 

The rule is in harmony with, and not in conflict

with or contradictory to, existing statutes, court 

decisions, or state or federal regulations. 

[CH&S §40727(b)(4)]

The proposed rule does not conflict with and is

not contradictory to existing statutes, court 

decisions, or state or federal regulations.

Non-Duplication:

The District must find that either: 1) The rule does 

not impose the same requirements as an existing 

site or federal regulation; or 2) that the duplicative 

requirements are necessary or proper to execute the 

powers and duties granted to, and imposed upon 

the District. 

[CH&S §40727(b)(5)]

The proposed rule does not impose requirements 

that duplicate existing laws or regulations.

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 the rule. [CH&S 

§40727(b)(6)]

References to statutes are noted where 

applicable.

- 5 -
Proposed Rule: 3.22 August 22, 2014 

10.0 Rule Analysis

Section 40727.2 requires a written analysis comparing the proposed rules with existing federal 

regulations, state regulation, and any other AQMD existing or proposed rules and regulations 

that apply to the same source type.

Comparison of Proposed Rule 3.22 and

Feather River AQMD Rules and Regulations

District Rules and Regulations

Does proposed rule 

conflict or contradict 

any provisions?

Regulation 1 – General Provisions No

Regulation 2 – Open Burning No

Regulation 3 – Prohibition – Stationary Emission Sources No

Regulation 4 – Stationary Emission Sources Permit System and 

Registration No

Regulation 5 – Hearing Board Procedures No

Regulation 6 – Variances No

Regulation 7 – Fees No

Regulation 8 – Penalties and Abatement No

Regulation 9 – Enforcement Procedures No

Regulation 10 – New Source Review No

Regulation 11 – Air Toxic Control Measure No

Comparison of Proposed Rules and other Federal and State Regulations

Under CH&S § 40727.2(g), the District finds that the proposed amendments do not strengthen or 

impose new emission limits or impose more stringent monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping 

requirements; therefore, it complies with CH&S Code § 40727.2.

- 6 -