Santa Barbara County APCD CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST (Electronic Format)

*** TO BE COMPLETED BY DISTRICT AND RETURNED TO ARB ***

All rules submitted to the EPA as State Im plementation Plan (S IP) revisions must be supp orted by certain information and documentation for the rule packages to be deemed complete for review by the EPA. Rules will not be evaluated for approvability by the EPA unless the submi ttal packages are complete. To assist you in determining that all necessary materials are included in rules packages sent to the ARB for submittal to the EPA, please fill out the following form and include it with the rule pack age you send ARB. See the ARB's Guidelines on the Impl ementation of the 40 CFR 51, Appendix V , for a more detailed explanation than is provided here. Adopted rules and rule amendments should be checked against U.S. EPA's Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies (Little Blue Book, August 21, 2001) to ensure that they contain no elements which w ill result in disapproval by EPA.

District: Santa Barbara County APCD

Rule No(s): 102, 201, 202, and 333

Rule Title(s): Rule 102: Definitions ; Rule 201: Permits Required ; Rule 202: Exemptions to Rule 201 ; Rule 333, Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Comb ustion Engines

Date Adopted or Amended: June 19, 2008

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

Note: All documents should be in electr onic format. Items that have signatu res, initials, or stam ps may be scanned.

Not Attached Attached N/A

COMPLETE COPY OF THE RULE: Provide an unmarked copy of the entire rule as adopted or amended by your District Board.

UNDERLINE AND STRIKEOUT COPY OF THE RULE : If an amended rule,

provide a complete copy of the rule indi cating in underline and strikeout format all language which has been added, de leted, or changed si nce the rule was last adopted or amended.

COMPLETE COPY OF THE REFERENCED RULE(S): For any rule which

includes language specif ically referencing another rule, a copy of that other rule must also be submitted, unless it has already been submitted to EPA as part of a previous SIP submittal.

PUBLIC NOTICE EVIDENCE: Include a copy of the local newspaper clipping

certification(s), stating the date of publication, which must be at least 30 days before the hearing. As an alternative, incl ude a copy of the actual published notice of the public hearing as it ap peared in the local ne wspaper(s). In this case, however, enough of the newspaper page must be included to show the date of publication. The notice must spec ifically identify by title and number each rule adopte d or amended.

RESOLUTION/MINUTE ORDER: Provide the Board Clerk certified resolution

or minute order. This document must include certificati on that the hearing was held in accordance with the information in the public notice. It must also list the rules that were adopted or amen ded, the date of the public hearing, and a statement of compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 40725-40728 (Admini strative Procedures Act).

PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES: Submit copies of written public

comments made during the notice period and at the public hearing. Also submit any written responses prepared by the District staf f or presented to the District Board at the publ ic hearing. A summary of the public comments and responses is adequate. If there were no comments made during the notice period or at the hearin g, please indicate N/A to the left.Santa Barbara County APCD CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST (Electronic Format)

TECHNICAL MATERIALS

Not Attached Attached N/A

RULE EVALUATION FORM: See instructions for completing the Rule Evaluation Form and the accompanying sample form.

NON-EPA TEST METHODS: Attach all test meth ods that are referenced in

your rule that do not ap pear in 40 CFR 51, 60, 61 , 63, or have not been previously submitted to EPA. EPA methods used in other media such as SW846 for solid waste are not automati cally approved f or air pollution applications. Submittal of test m ethods that are not EPA -approved should include the information and follow the procedure described in Region 9’s “Test Method Review & Evaluat ion Process.”

MODELING SUPPORT: Provide if appropriate. In general, modeling support is

not required for VOC and NOx rules to determine their impacts on ozone levels. Modeling is required where a rule is a relaxation that affects large sources (> 100 TPY) in an attainment area for SO2, directly emitted PM10, CO, or NOx (for NO2 purposes). In cases where EPA is concerned with the impact on air quality of rule revision s which relax limits or cause a shift in emission patte rns in a nonattainment area, a reference back to the approved SIP will be sufficient provided the approv ed SIP accounts for the relaxation and provided the approved SIP used the current EPA modeling guidelines. If current EPA modeling guidelines were not used, then new modeling may be required.

ECONOMIC AND TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR DEVIATIONS FROM

EPA POLICIES : The District staff report or oth er information included with the submittal should discuss all potential relaxations or deviations from RACT, RACM, BACT, BACM, enforceability, att ainment, RFP, or other relevant EPA requirements. This includes, for ex ample, demonstrating that exemptions or emission limits less stri ngent than the presumptive RACT (e.g., a CTG) meet EPA’s 5 percent policy, and demonstr ating that all source categories exempted from a RACM/BACM rule are de minimis according to EPA’s RACM/BACM policy.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS : Provide District s taff reports and any other

supporting information concerning develo pment of the rule or rule changes. This information should explain the basis for all limits and thresholds contained in the rule.CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

– Page 1

(Electronic Form at)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Santa Barbara County APCD

Rule No(s): 1 02 , 201, 202, and 3 33 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: June 19 , 2008

Rule Title(s): Definitions, Permits Required, Exemptions to R ule 201, and Control of Emissions from Reciprocating

Internal Combustion Engines

Date Submitted to ARB: July 02 , 2008

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): Rule 102: 1/20/2005; Rule 201: 4/17/1997; Rule 202: 3/17/2005; and Rule 333: 4 /17/1997

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No (If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Douglas Grapple Phone Number: 805.961.8883 E

- mail Ad dress: G rappleD@sbcapcd.org

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Rule 102 : Staff added and modified several definitions that are used in various parts of the rulebo ok to improve

rule clarity. Rule 201 : The Rule 201.D.2 provisions on exempting or permitting pile drivers, pipe

- laying barges, and derrick barges has been relocated into Rule 202, Section F.7. The Rule 202.F.7 provision is expanded to

include cable

- layi ng and pipe

- laying vessels. Rule 202 : The Santa Barbara County APCD (SBCAPCD) deleted the construction engine and well drilling engine exemption. In response to industry concerns with those

deletions , staff added five new exemptions (e.g., specialty equ ipment exemption, marine vessel engine exemption, and limited exemptions from the New Source Review requirements). Additional changes were made

to streamline the permitting process. Through the course of the rulemaking effort, the APCD received requests to modify and add Rule 202 permit exemptions that are unrelated to the internal combustion engine exemptions. Staff considered each request and, where suitable, included the new or amended exemption provision. Rule

333 : Changes 1) addressed ARB and EPA concerns and 2) revised oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and reactive organic compound (ROC) limits to meet “Reasonably Available Control Technology” (RACT)

levels of control.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2 (CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach refere nce(s) for emission
factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emi ssion information provided below was determined.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: The SBCAPCD 2007 Clean A ir Plan ( CAP ) indicates

f or year 2010: 0 .0246 tons per day (decrease) for NOx and

- 0.0051 tons per day (increase) for ROC. The 2007
CAP does not include any emission changes for CO.

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: For the SBCAPC D 2007 CAP, the baseline year used was

2002 ; f or the rulemaking effort , the baseline year used was 2005

. Area Affected: Santa Barbara CountyCALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQ MD RULE EVALUATION FORM

- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible) :

The following growth factors are also shown in the calculation data in Attachment 9. All of t he spark ignition engines targeted for NOx emission reductions in the 2007 CAP are related to oil industry processing (SCC 20200202 , SIC 1311 )

in the onshore area. The 2007 CAP used a baseli ne year of 2002 with the following growth factors: 2010: 0.8661, 2015: 0.7968, and 2020 0.7343 . For the five compression ignition engines (SCC 20200102) targeted to have NOx emission
reductions in the 2007 CAP , four are oil an d gas production related (SIC 1311) . O ne of these is located in state territorial waters, which has the same growth factors as the aforementioned spark ignition engines. The other three oil and gas production compression ignition engines are located offs hore in the outer continental shelf (OCS) and the growth factor for each year is 1 .0 (flat)

. The last compression ignition engine is associated with mineral processing (SIC 3295) and has growth factors as follows: 2010: 1.2360; 2015: 1.3747; and 2020: 1.5135.

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: Rule 333 implements two Control Measures: N

- IC

- 1 (aka CM 19 )

and N

- IC

- 3 (aka CM 20)

. The 2007 CAP data used the following 2002 baseline data (includes both control measures ) : 1.7 5 tons per day of NOx and 0.26 tons per day of ROG.

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: Rule 333 implements two Control Measures: N

IC

- 1 (aka CM 19 ) and N

- IC

- 3 (aka CM 20) . The 2007 CAP listed the year 2010 emissio n reduction s commitment for
both of these control measures as: 0.0246 tons per day (decrease) for NOx and

- 0.0051 tons per day (increase) for ROC. The 2007 CAP does not include any emission changes for CO.

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): The suppo rting calculations for the rule development project used a baseline year of

2005. The baseline inventory for 2005 for these control measure is 1.88 tons per day of NOx and 0.17 tons per day for
ROG.

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): 0 .0178 tons per day for NOx (decrease) and

- 0.0001 tons per day (increase) for ROG

. Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and pl anning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

Distr ict is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: 3

Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100 %

Number of Large ( > 100 TP Y) Sources Controlled: 12 Percent in Nonattainment Area: 100 %

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large ( > 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as necessary) :

BreitBurn Energy

- Orcutt Hill SSID 0266 7 Orcutt, Santa Barbara County
DCOR

- South County/Dos Cuadras SSID 08003 OCS Area, Santa Barbara County

E & B

- South Cuyama SSID 01073 Cuyama, Santa Barbara County

Exxon

- SYU Project SSID 01482 Goleta, Santa Barbara County
Greka

- Cat Canyon SSID 02658 Cat Canyon Field, Santa Barbara County
Greka

- Clark Avenue Source SSID 02200 Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County

Platform Habitat SSID 08012 OCS Area, Santa Barbara County Pt. Pedernales/Lompoc Oil Fields SSID 04632 Lompoc, Santa Barbara CountyCALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQ MD RULE EVALUATION FORM

- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

So Cal Gas

- La Goleta SSID 05019 Goleta, Santa Barbara County The Point Arguello Project SSID 01325 OCS Area, Santa Barbara County

Venoco

- Carpinteria SSID 00027 Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County

Venoco

- Ellwood SSID 01063 Goleta, Santa Barbara County

IV. EMISSI ON REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s ) E.1, E.2, E.3, and E.4 of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achie ving Emission Reductions are: The SBCAPCD anticipates owners/operators will use

the lean

- burn tuning technique on spark ignition engines a nd the retardation of the injection timing technique for compression ignition engines. Other methods for achieving c ompliance with the emission limits include: E ngine replacement with a newer

, cleaner burning engine; use of anhydrous ammon ia ( if the use is accepted by the APCO per §E.5); and electrification

.

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): E.1, E.2, E.3, and E.4 Work Practice Standards in Section(s): D , Requirements

– Engine Identification, Meters, and Continuous Monitoring Systems. A nd for engines subject to emission limits, I&M plans (§F), and Compliance Plans (§G). Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): J

. Reporting Requirements in Section(s): N/A

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment



### Discussion: T he targ eted engines for emission reductions changed slightly due to :

1. Changes in the inventory,

2. C hanges in the equipme nt’s operating schedules (which made them ex empt from the control requirements) , and

3 . Implementation of the stationary compression i gnition engine ATCM coupled with the 2005 exemption change to Rule

202.

Thus, there is a difference between the emission reduction estimates in the 2007 CAP and the estimates from the rulemaking effort:

NOx ROC
2007 CAP Data (TPD) 0.0246

- 0.0051

2008 Rulemaking Data (TPD) 0.0 178

- 0.0001
Difference: 0.0068

- 0.0050

Emission reductions associated with some of the engines (device numbers 005949, 005950, 006231, and 002336) did not show up in the 2008 rulem aking calculations due to the equipment not being use d during the 2005 baseline year. Also, the emission reductions from device number 003318 were not included in the 2008 rulemaking calculations because the company agreed to limit the engine use to < 20 0 hours per year. By accepting this limit, the engine becameCALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD



### APCD/AQ MD RULE EVALUATION FORM

- Page 4

(Electronic Format)

exempt from Rule 333 e mission limits (via Rule 333.B.2 ). A compression ignition engine powering a crane (device number 005083) had the emission reductions reassigned to be associated Rule 202 c hanges that occurred in 2005 as part of the ATCM implementation program . Thu s, the above listed shortfall of the NOx emission reduction (about 14 pounds per day) may be a perceived shortfall that does not actually exist. The growth of the NOx baseline fr om the CY 2002 level of 1.75 TPD to the CY 2005 level of 1.88 TPD may seem to be in conflict with a lower calculated NOx reduction figure. However, the increase of the baseline data is due to more compression ignition engines being added to

the inventory. These engines were previously unknown permit exempt engines. We obtained data on them as a result of increased permitting activities stemming from the 2005 permit exemption change (lowering the compression ignition engine cut off from 100 to 50 brake ho rsepower and eliminating the emergency engine exemption for CI ICEs). In general, when an engine’s permit status changes from being permit exempt to permitted it becomes subject to Rule 333. In the case of compression ignition engines, there are two thin gs that make it difficult to attribute their emission reductions to the 2008 rule revisions: 1) aside from the 2008 well drilling exemption change, these engin es lost their exemption in 2005; and 2) the emission reductions from the ATCM overshadow emissio n reductions associated with

Rule 333.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 1 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008

RULE 333. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FRO M RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION

ENGINES. (Adopted 12/03/1991, revised 12/10/1991
, and 4/17/1997 , and [ date of revised rule adoption ] )

A. Applicability

1. The provisions of this rule shall apply to all any engine s with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater and which are fueled by natural gas, field gas, liquefied petroleum gas, diesel fuel, gasoline

, or any other liquid fuel

.

B. Exemptions

1. Notwithstanding A.1., t T he requirements of this R r ule shall not apply to:

a. Engines Spark ignition engines operating on gaseous fuel consisting of 75 percent or more of landfill gas on a volume basis determined by annual fuel use. To qualify for this exemption

written documentation must shall be submitted with the Authority to Construct application to and approved by the Control Officer. The documentation must describe the fuel meter s used

, and the level of accuracy of the fuel meter s , and calculations to correct volumes to

standard conditions to demonstrate compliance. Separate fuel meters shall be used which

that measure s the volume s ( ft 3 cubic feet ) of landfill gas used and a separate fuel meter for the volume (ft 3 ) of all other gases gaseous fuel used. Fuel usage records shall be maintained identifying the volume of landfill gas and the volume of natural gas all other gaseous fuel used annually. The following method shall be used to determine the 75 landfill gas percent
percentage on a volume basis:

Volume in ft 3 cubic feet of landfill gas consumed annually x 100

Per cent of Fuel use Landfill Gas Percentage = Total Volume in ft 3 cubic feet of all gas gaseous fuel consumed annually

The volumes in the above equation shall be corrected for standard conditions

.

b. Engines that are exempt from per mit under the provisions of Rule s 202, Exemptions to Rule

201

.

c. Any d erated engine having a maximum allowable and enforceable output rating of

less than 50 brake horsepower , provided such rating is specified by the District in an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate and accepted by the engine owner or
operator

.

d. Any c ompression ignition emergency standby engines

, as defined under California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 93115

, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition (CI) Engines

.

2. Engines which operate An y engine that has a total aggregated operational period less than 200 hours per calendar year are is exempt from Sections D

. , E

. , F

. , and G. the requirements of this rule , with the exception of the engine identification requirement in Section D. 1 , the elapsed operating time meter requirement in Section D. 2 , the recordkeeping provisions in Section J .3

, and the compliance

schedule s for these provisions specified in S ection K

. To qualify for this exemption

, the engine owner or operator shall maintain and record in a log, as required in Section H, the engine hour meter reading every first working day of each calendar quarter

. The hours per year operating period of aSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 2 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 r elocated engine that perform s the same f unctio n as the engine it displaced will be included in calculating the total aggregated operating period for determining applicability of this exemption

.

3. Section G requirements for a Compliance Plan shall not be applicable to any compression ignition engines that are subject to an exhaust emission standard in the:

a. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2423, for off

- road engines, or

b. 40 CFR, Part 89, for nonroad compression ignition engines.

C. Definitions

See Rule 102 for def

initions not limited to this rule. For the purpose s of this R r ule, the following definitions

shall apply:

“Air

- balanced pumping engine” means a noncyclically

- loaded engine powering a well pump, with the pump using compressed air in a cylinder under the f ront of the walking beam to offset the weight of the column of rods and fluid in the well, eliminating the need for counterweights.

“ Beam

- balanced pumping engine ” means a cyclically

- loaded engine powering a well pump, with the pump counterweight on the ba ck end of the walking beam. The counterweight is moved mechanically without a cylinder supplying air pressure.

“ Crank

- balanced pumping engine ” means a cyclically

- loaded engine powering a well pump, with the pump counterweight attached to a gearbox which is attached to the walking beam with a pitman arm. The counterweight is moved mechanically, in a circular motion, without a cylinder supplying air pressure.

“ Cyclic ally

- loaded engine ” means an engine that under normal operating conditions has an external load that

varies in shaft load by 40 percent or more of rated brake horsepower during any load cycle or recurrent periods of 30 seconds or less, or is used to power an oil a well reciprocating pump ing unit including beam

- balanced or

crank

- balanced pumps. Engines powering air

- balanced pumps are noncyclically

- loaded engines

.

1. “ Engine ” means any spark or compression ignited ignition engine in which the pistons are contained within a cylinder and move back and forth in a straight line.

2. “ Cyclic engi ne ” means an engine that under normal operating conditions varies in shaft load by 40 percent or more of rated brake horsepower during recurrent periods of 30 seconds or less, or is used to power an oil well reciprocating pumping unit.

3. “ Noncyclic eng ine ” means any engine which is not a cyclic engine.

“Exhaust c ontrols ” means any device or technique used to treat an engine's exhaust to reduce emissions, and include (but are not limited) to catalysts, afterburners, reaction chambers, and chemical inje ctors.

4. “ Existing engine ” means an engine which that by December 3, 1991 [ date of revised rule adoption ] ;

a 1

. has been issued a valid ATC Authority to Construct, or PTO Permit to Operate, or Exemption to a Permit to Operate (or listed as exempt on an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) pursuant to District rules and regulations; or

b 2

. has been identified in an application for an ATC Authority to Construct submitted to and deemed complete by the District; orSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 3 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 c 3

. is an identical replace ment as defined in Rule 202 A. (5) for an engine defined in Section

C.4.a. has been operated in Santa Barbara County as exempt and now requires a Permit to Operate because of a Rule 202 exemption change effective [ date of revised rule adoption ]

.

5. “ New e ngine ” is an engine which is not an existing engine.

6. “ Field gas ” means gas which does not meet the standards as published by the Public Utilities Commission for natural gas (37 California Code of Regulations 589)

.

“Four

- stroke engine ” means any type of engine which completes the power cycle in two crankshaft revolutions, with intake and compression strokes in the first revolution and power and exhaust strokes in the

second revolution.

7. “ Lean

- burn engine ” means a spark

- ignited or compression igni ted, Otto

- cycle, Diesel cycle or

any two

- stroke or four

- stroke engine where the manufacturer's recommended operating air

- to

- fuel ratio divided by the stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio is greater than 1.1 . Any existing engine where there are no

manufacturer ‟s recommendations regarding the air

- to

- fuel ratio will be considered a lean

- burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the exhaust at full load conditions that is operated with an exhaust stream oxygen

concentration of is greater than 4 2 percent by vol ume , or greater

. Where exhaust control is employed on such an existing engine, The the exhaust gas oxygen content shall be determined from the uncontrolled

exhaust stream. An y engine modification that changes a ny rich

- burn engine to a lean

- burn engine or vice versa requires approval from the Control Officer in the form of a p ermit modification.

“ New engine ” is an engine that is not an existing engine.

" Noncyclic ally

- loaded engine " means any engine which is not a cyclic ally

- loaded engine.

8. “ Opera ting engine ” means an engine that is operating and consuming fuel for its intended application a minimum of 150 hours for each month during the 12 consecutive month period prior to the adoption of this Rule as certified by the engine owner or operator.

9

. " Rated brake horsepower " means the maximum brake horsepower rating at maximum revolutions per minute (RPM) specified for the engine by the manufacturer. Alternately, the rated brake horsepower of an engine shall be the maximum allowable and enforceable rating specified by the District, stated in the Permit to Operate (PTO), and accepted by the engine operator.

“ppmv” means parts per million by volume , dry

.

10. “ Rich

- burn E e ngine ” means a spark

- ignited , Otto

- cycle, or a an y spark ignition

, four

- stroke naturally aspirated engine where the manufacturer

- recommended operating air

- to

- fuel ratio divided by the

stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio is less than or equal to 1.1

. Any existing engine where there are no manufacturer‟s recommendations regarding the air

- to

- fuel ratio will be considered a rich

- burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the exhaust at full load conditions that is operated with an exhaust stream oxygen

concentration of is less than or equal to 4 2 percent by volume. Where exhaust control is employed on such an existing engine

, The the exhaust gas oxygen content shall be determined from the uncontrolled exhaust stream. Additionally, any engine which is designated as a rich burn engine on a District Permit on the date of rule adoption shall be a rich burn engine. An y engine modification that changes a ny rich

- burn engine to a lean

burn engine or vice versa requires approval from the Control Officer in the form of a permit modification.

11. “ Diesel Engine ” means a compression ignited four st roke engine that is operated with an exhaust stream oxygen concentration of 4 percent by volume, or greater.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 4 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 “Stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio ” means the chemically correct air

- to

- fuel ratio where all fuel and all oxygen in the air and fuel mixture will b e consumed

.

“ Two

- stroke engine ” means a type of engine which completes the power cycle in single crankshaft revolution by combining the intake and compression operations into one stroke and the power and exhaust operations into a second stroke. This sys tem requires auxiliary scavenging and inherently runs lean of the

stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio

.

D. Requirements

– Engine Identification, Meter s , and Continuous Monitoring System s

The owner or operator of any engine subject to this r ule shall ensure e ach engine meets the following requirements in accordance with the compliance schedule specified in Section K

.

1

. A ny engine subject to this r ule shall have a permanently affix ed plate, tag

, or marking listing:

a. the engine's make, model, and serial nu mber; or

b. the owner‟s or operator's unique identification number.

The plate, tag, or marking shall be made accessible and legible.

2

. Each engine shall be equipped with a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter and the meter

shall be maintained in proper operating condition.

3

. Each engine shall be equipped with a nonresettable fuel meter or , where approved by the Control Officer in writing, an alternative device, method, or technique for determining fuel consumption.

The fuel meter shall be calib rated periodically p ursuant to the recommendations of the

manufacturer and shall be maintained in proper operating condition.

4

. Engines in the following category shall be equipped with a continuous oxides of nitrogen , carbon monoxide, and oxygen monitori ng system approved by the Control Officer pursuant to an Authority to Construct :

New e ngines rated at 1,000 brake horsepower or greater that:

a. are installed on or after [ date of revised rule adoption ], and

b. are subject to the emission limits spe cified in Section E

, and

c

. have Permits to Operate allowing operations in excess of 2,000 hours per year

.

This system shall determine and record exhaust gas oxides of nitrogen concentrations and carbon

monoxide in parts per million by volume (dry) , co rrected to 15 percent oxygen. The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions monitoring system or an alternative approved by

the Control Officer. A lternative s to a continuous emissions monitoring system must be submitted

to and approved b y the Control Officer. Continuous emission monitoring systems shall meet the District Continuous Emission Monitoring P rotocol (1992) and applicable federal requirements described in 40 CFR Part 60. These include the performance specifications found in App endix B, Specification 2, the quality assurance requirements found in Appendix F, and the reporting requirements of Parts 60.7(c), 60.7(d), and 60.13.

The monitor ing system shall have data gathering and retrieval capability as approved by the

Control Offi cer

. All data collected by the monitoring system shall be maintained for at least two years and made available for inspection by the Control Officer. Any Control Officer approvedSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 5 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 c ontinuous monitoring system for oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and o xygen shall suffice in lieu of the quarterly monitoring required in Section F.3

.

D E

. Requirements

- Emission Limits

Owners or operators of engines shall meet the following requirements based on biennial source testing, in accordance with the complianc e schedule set forth in Section I K :

1. Noncyclic Rich Rich

- Burn Noncyclically

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines

a. The emission concentrations

, corrected for oxygen, fr om any such engine Rich burn noncyclic engines shall not exceed the following concentra tion limits corrected for oxygen :

Limit ( ppmV ppmv at 15 percent oxygen )

Pollutant 15% Oxygen 3% Oxygen

NOx 50 152

ROC 250 758

CO 4

, 500 13,653

b. Rich burn noncyclic engines shall meet E ngines using either combustion modifications or

exhaust controls shall meet the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) requirements limit specified above, or the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) shall be reduced by at least 90 percent by mass of the

uncontrolled emissions across the control device

. For engines with exhaust controls, t he percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently the oxides of nitrogen concentration upstream and downstream from the exhaust control. For engines without external control devices, the percent control shall be based on source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine‟s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and repeated at each successive post

- control source test to ensure that the engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The parts per million by volume (dry) limits for reactive organic compounds and carbon monoxide apply to all engines.

2. Noncyclic Lean Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, fr om any such engine Lean burn noncyclic engines shall not exceed the following limits as corrected f or oxygen :

Any engine with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater but less than 100:

Limit (ppmv at 15 percent oxygen )

Pollutant

NOx 200

ROC 750

CO 4,500Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 6 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 Any engin e with a rated brake horsepower of 100 or greater:

Limit ( ppmV ppmv at 15 percent oxygen )

Pollutant 15% Oxygen 3% Oxygen

NOx 125 380

ROC 750 2

, 275

CO 4

, 500 13,653

b. Lean burn engines shall meet Any engine with a rated brake horsepower of 100 or greater using either combustion modifications or exhaust controls shall meet the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) requirements specified above, or the oxi des of nitrogen (NOx) shall be reduced by

at least 80 % percent by mass of the uncontrolled emissions across the control device

. For engines with exhaust controls, t he percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently the oxides of nitrogen con centration upstream and downstream from the

exhaust control. For engines without external control devices, the percent control shall be based on source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine‟s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and repeated at each successive
post

- control source test to ensure that the engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The
parts per million by volume (dry) limits for reactive organic compounds and carbon

monoxide apply to all engines.

3. Cyclic Rich

- Burn Cyclically

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines

a. On or before March 2, 1992 the owner or operator of cyclic engines shall maintai n an exhaust stream oxygen concentration of 6.5 percent or greater, by volume. Owners or operators of cyclic engines shall comply with the following:

i. An initial source test shall be performed within twelve months from December 3, 1991 for each engine. Subsequent source tests shall be performed in accordance with Section G.; and

ii. The exhaust stream oxygen concentration shall be monitored on a monthly basis utilizing a portable analyzer or any other method approved by the Control Officer.

The instr ument reading shall be recorded as set forth in Section H.

b. The e mission concentrations

, corrected for oxygen, fr om any such engine Cyclic engines shall not exceed the following limits , in accordance with Section I. :

Limit ( ppmV ppmv at 15 pe rcent oxygen )

Pollutant 15% Oxygen 3% Oxygen

NOx 50 300 152

ROC 250 758

CO 4

, 500 13,653

Alternatively, NOx emissions may be reduced by at least 90% of the uncontrolled emissions

across the control device.

c. In lieu of D.3.a. and D.3.b. above, an engine owner or operator may choose for any cyclic engine to comply with Section D.1. of this rule by designating the cyclic engine as a no ncyclicSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 7 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 engine for the purposes of this Rule. In this case the owner or operator shall notify

the District in writing on or before March 2, 1992 which cyclic engines will be designated as noncyclic engines. These engines shall be included as part of th e compliance plan as set forth

in Section F.

4. Compression Ignition Engines and Dual

- Fuel Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, fr om any such engine Diesel engines

shall not exceed 8.4 grams per brake horsepower

- hour of oxides of nitrogen or the following limits as corrected for oxygen :

Limit ( ppmV ppmv at 15 percent oxygen )

Pollutant 15% Oxygen 3% Oxygen

NOx 797 700 2,400

ROC 750

CO 4 ,500

b. Engines using either combustion modifications or exhaust controls shall meet the oxides of nitrogen limit specified above, or the oxides of nitrogen shall be reduced by at least 40 percent by mass of the uncontrolled emissions. For engines wit h exhaust controls, the percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently the oxides of nitrogen concentration upstream and downstream from the exhaust control. For engines without external control devices, the percent control shall be based o n source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine‟s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and repeated at each s uccessive post

- control source test to ensure that the engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The parts per million by volume (dry) limits for reactive organic compounds and carbon monoxide apply to all engines.

5. Alternative Emission Control Pl an (AECP)

An owner or operator of any existing engine subject to this rule may meet the NO

x emission control requirements of Sections D.1, D.2, and D.3.b, by controlling additional existing engines at the same stationary source, which are not otherwise subject to this rule, provided the owner or operator submits an Alternative Emission Control Plan that is enforceable by the District and is approved in writing by the Control Officer, ARB and EPA prior to implementation.

Any Alternative Emission Contro l Plan must be submitted by March 9, 1992.

The Alternative Emission Control Plan shall:

a. Include all information determined by the Control Officer as necessary to confirm that the requirements of this section will be met.

b. Include the control of all engines 20 horsepower and larger at the stationary source. All engines shall be controlled consistent with the applicable schedule specified in Section I.

c. Achieve at least 20 percent more tonnage of NOx emission reductions than otherwise

requ ired by Sections D.1, D.2 and D.3.b. The required tonnage of emission reductions shall be calculated using a 90% (80% for lean burn engines) reduction from an uncontrolled emission factor of 2,000 lbs of NOX/MMSCF fuel used, with the baseline fuel usage

c alculated in accordance with Rule 802.F.2. When engine specific fuel usage is notSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 8 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 available, fuel use data will be apportioned to individual engines based on their estimated utilized horsepower, following a method approved by the Control Officer.

d. Sp ecify NO

x , ROC and CO ppmv emission limits for each engine. NO

x ppmv limits for each engine shall be equal to or less than that emitted from the engine when the exhaust stream oxygen concentration is set at the maximum percentage achievable while maintain ing stable engine operation. The ROC and CO ppmv limits specified in Sections D.1, D.2 and D.3.b. shall not be exceeded. All engines included in the AECP shall be included as non

exempt engines on District permits with these emission limits specified.

e. Calculate the uncontrolled emission factor for engines 20 to 49 horsepower by measuring the

NO

x emissions in accordance with Section G. (except the test shall be conducted for 30 minutes) with the exhaust stream oxygen concentration adjusted to 2 perc ent or greater by volume. Baseline fuel usage for these engines shall be calculated as specified above.

f. Calculate the tonnage of emission reductions achieved to meet the requirements of Section D.5.c. by subtracting the controlled emission rate from the uncontrolled emission rate. The controlled emission rate shall be calculated using the controlled engine NO

x ppmv limit and the baseline fuel usage. The uncontrolled emission rate shall be calculated as specified in Section D.5.c for engines 50 hors epower and over and Section D.5.e for engines 20 to 49 horsepower.

g. Provide that emission reductions for any engine required under Regulation VIII shall not be used to reduce the emission reductions required of any other engine.

h. Include engine s pecific fuel usage monitoring, and other continuous monitoring on each engine determined necessary by the Control Officer to confirm continuous compliance with the required pollution reductions.

i. Exempt from the requirements of Section G and D.5.h., a ny 20 to 49 horsepower engines whose control is not required to meet the obligations established under Section D.5.c. These engines must, however, meet all other requirements in the rule, including requirements in Section E. The AECP shall specify any en gines subject to this exemption.

j. Insure compliance with all other provisions of this rule, including but not limited to D.3.a,

D.4 and D.5.

The AECP may be modified at a future date to incorporate equivalent replacement engines which meet the requ irements of Rule 202.D.9. The emission limit for the new engine shall be the same as for the replaced engine.

All District costs for the review and enforcement of the AECP and for District participation in any

field studies shall be reimbursed under th e cost reimbursement provisions of Rule 210.

A violation of the AECP shall be a violation of this rule and any applicable permit.

6 5

. The use of anhydrous ammonia to meet the requirements of this rule is prohibited unless case

- specific analysis indica tes that the use is acceptable to the Control Officer

.

E F

. Requirements

- Owner or Operator Engine Inspection s and Maintenance Plan

All Any engine s subject to the requirements of Section D E shall be inspected by the engine owner or operator

in accordan ce with a District District

- approved engine Engine inspection Inspection and maintenance

Maintenance plan Plan for each stationary source

. which The owner or operator shall meet the following requirements for the Plan in accordance with the compliance sc hedule specified in Section K :Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 9 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 1. The plan shall be submitted to the District by March 2, 1992

. Obtain the Control Officer‟s approval

of the Plan. A n Inspection and Maintenance Plan for each stationary source shall be submitted to the

District in a for mat approved by the Control Officer

.

2. Such plan shall list List all engines by engine classification , identified as either cyclics ( rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark ignition

, rich

- burn cyclically

- loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition

, and noncyclics compression ignition , or dual

- fuel )

, and identify the method, engine and control equipment operating parameters parameter ranges , and compliance values , including engine exhaust oxygen con c entration ranges, to be used to verify compliance with Sec tion D E

.

3. The plan shall require a minimum of one inspection for each engine every calendar quarter

. The readings for each parameter identified in E .2

. shall be recorded pursuant to Section H

.

4 3

. A portable NOx emissions analyzer or any other metho d approved by the Control Officer shall be

used to take NOx oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide emission readings and engine exhaust oxygen concentration readings to determine compliance with the emission limits or percent control specified in Section D E during which any quarter (or month , if performing monthly monitoring) in which a source test is not performed under Section G I and an engine is operated in excess of 20 hours
per quarter

. If such an engine cannot be operated for portable analyzer emis sions testing due to mechanical failure or lack of fuel, the monitoring requirement may be waived provided written Control Officer approval is obtained prior to the end of the quarter (or month , if performing monthly monitoring)

. All emission readings sha ll be taken at an engine‟s typical duty cycle. The results shall be recorded pursuant to Section H

. The analyzer shall be calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer‟s specifications and recommendations or a Control Officer

app roved protocol. The applicable control equipment parameters and engine operating parameters will be inspected and monitored in conformance with a regular inspection schedule listed in the P lan.

A n portable analyzer instrument reading in excess of the emi ssion compliance values shall not be

considered a violation of this rule , so long as the problem is corrected engine is brought into compliance and a follow

- up inspection is conducted within 15 days of the initial inspection out

- of

compliance reading

. If a n engine owner or operator or D istrict staff find an engine to be operating outside the acceptable range for control equipment parameters

, engine operating parameters

, engine

exhaust oxides of nitrogen or carbon monoxide concentrations

, the owner or operat or shall bring the engine into compliance within 15 days. Also, when there has been a portable analyzer instrument reading in excess of the emission compliance values or a source test result in excess of an emission

limit or less than the percent control requirement , the inspection and maintenance monitoring schedule will be performed on a monthly basis and continue to be monthly until Rule 333 compliance

is demonstrated in three consecutive months (by portable analyzer or source tests).

The results and i nstrument readings for each engine and control equipment operating parameter
identified in the inspection plan Inspection and Maintenance Plan

, the analyzer instrument readings, a description of the corrective actions taken, a determination of whether or n ot the engine is in compliance, and the initials name of the person recording the measurement information shall be

recorded on in an inspection log consistent with the recordkeeping provisions specified in Section J .1

.

4

. I nclude preventive and correctiv e maintenance procedures. Before any change in operations can be implemented, the P lan must be revised as necessary, and the revised P lan must be submitted to and approved by the Control Officer.

F G

. Requirements

- Compliance Plan

A compliance The owne r or operator of an y engine subject to the emission limits in Section E shall submit and

obtain the Control Officer ‟s approval of a Compliance plan Plan

. A new or revised Compliance Plan for each stationary source shall be submitted to the District in a fo rmat approved by the Control Officer in accordance

with the time schedule specified in Section I.2. K unless otherwise specified by the Control Officer

. or I.3. to theSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 10 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 District for each stationary source The C ompliance P lan shall describe all actions, inc luding a schedule of increments of progress, which will be taken to meet the applicable emissions limitations in Section E and the compliance schedule in Section K. The owner or operator shall ensure that the C ompliance P lan meets the following requiremen ts and shall include :

1. a l L ist of all engines with by classification (rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark ignition, rich

- burn cyclically

- loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition, compression ignition, or dual

- fuel), make, model, serial number (or owner‟s/ operator's ID number), rated brake horsepower and

associated RPM , type of fuel (including higher heating value and percent or ppm parts per million by volume (dry) sulfur), engine application, maximum total hours of operation per in the previou s year, typical daily operating schedule, fuel consumption (cubic feet of gas or gallons of liquid) for the previous one year period, engine location and engine PTO Permit to Operate number (if applicable) ;

. and

2. List manufacturer

- tested typical emissio n rates or source test values, if available or documentation showing existing emissions of oxides of nitrogen, reactive organic compounds, and carbon

monoxide ;

. and

3. List the applicable emission limits

.

3 4

. List the type of emission control device or method for each engine, and the temperature and flow rate of the exhaust gas, and any auxiliary devices used with the main control device (i.e., air

- to

- fuel ratio controller, exhaust gas monitor, etc.), and the proposed installation completion date for eac h engine to

be controlled , stack modifications to facilitate continuous in

- stack monitoring and source testing

.

5. A n Engine I nspection and M aintenance P lan , as specified in Section F, or a t a minimum, a reference

to an d a statement incorporating the En gine I nspectio n and M aintenance P lan into the C ompliance

P lan

.

4 6

. List of all existing and operating engines planned for shutdown or electrification and the proposed

date of shutdown or electrification.

An owner or operator may modify a compliance Com pliance plan Plan by submitting a modified plan Plan to
the District at least thirty ( 30 ) calendar days prior to modifying the equipment

, or control method or compliance date for any engine. Modification of a compliance plan shall not alter the schedule of controlled horsepower required in Section I

.

Approval of a compliance Compliance plan Plan does not relieve the owner or operator of engine(s) from the permitting requirements of District Rule 201.

H

. [ Re served]

G I

. Requirements

- Source Testing

The owner or operator of any engine subject to the requirements of Section E shall comply with the following:

1. Source test plans Except as otherwise provided in Section I. 8 , a n initial emissions source test shall be performed on each stationary internal c ombustion engine to verify compliance with Section E

. A After the initial source test, source test s shall be performed biennially to demonstrate compliance with

Section D E

. S These s ource tests shall be performed within 30 calendar days of the anniversar y date of the initial source test, unless the Control Officer approves a period longer than thirty ( 30 ) calendar days. Emissions source testing shall be conducted at an engine's maximum achievable load or, at a minimum, under the engine's typical duty cyc le as demonstrated by historical operational data. Source test loads shall be finalized in the source test plan approved by the District per Section I.2

. For facilities with more than 20 engines subject to Section E requirements, the Control Officer may, onSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 11 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 a case

- by

- base basis, approve a source‟s written request to exclude one or more engines from biennial

test ing. Such a request shall be submitted with the Plan required in Section I. 2

.

2. a. An owner or operator of any engine shall A S ource T est P lan shall be submit ted to the

District and obtain the Control Officer's approval of a source test plan shall be obtained prior to the

start of a source test . The approved p P lan shall be on file d with the District at least thirty ( 30 )

calendar days before the start of each source test ing . The District shall be notified of the date for source testing an engine at least fourteen ( 14 ) calendar days prior to testing to arrange a mutually agreeable test date. In addition to other information, the S ource T est P lan shall describe which critical parameters will be measured for th o se parameters specified in the Engine Inspection and

Maintenance Plan described in Section F.

b. A source test shall be performed biennially to demonstrate compliance with Section D. Source tests shall be performed within 30 calendar days of the anniversary date of the initial source test, unless the Control Officer approves a period longer than thirty (30) calendar days.

3. c. Source testing shall be performed by a source test con tractor certified by the California Air

Resources Board. District required S s ource testing shall not be performed by a source owner or operator unless approved by the Control Officer.

4. For each source test performed, a Source Test Report shall be subm itted to the District within 45 days of completing the test. Reactive o rganic c ompounds, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide concentrations shall be reported in parts per million by volume , corrected to 15 percent oxygen. For engines using either com

bustion modifications or exhaust controls , oxides of nitrogen shall be reported as a percent reduction from the combustion modification or control device.

5. d. The owner or operator of For any engine which that is found not to be in compliance with

Sect ion D E

. as a result of source testing

, shall comply with the following shall apply :

a. i. A r R epeat a source test shall be performed to demonstrate compliance with Section

D. E within the time period specified by the District.

b. ii. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section G.1.b. I.1 , annual source tests shall be conducted on any noncompliant engine until two consecutive annual tests demonstrate the engine is in compliance with Section D E . When the engine is demonstrated to be in compliance with Se ction D E by two consecutive annual source tests, the engine shall comply with the provisions of Section G.1.b I.1

.

2 6

. Engine operating parameters (e.g., timing, manifold vacuum pressure, valve set points, etc.) shall be established using the results of the source test carried out pursuant to Section G I.1

.

3 7

. Test Methods

a. Source testing shall be performed in accordance with the following procedures:

NOx, CO, O 2 : CARB Method 1

- 100

ROC: EPA Method 18 or EPA Method 25

i. Stack gas oxygen: Environmental Protection Agency Method 3A or Air Resources

Board Method 100.

ii. Nitrogen oxides: Environmental Protection Agency Method 7E or Air Resources

Board Method 100.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 12 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 iii. Carbon monoxide: Environmental Protection Agency Method 10 or Air Reso urces Board Method 100.

iv. Reactive organic compounds: Environmental Protection Agency Method 18 with gas chromatography

- flame ionization detection speciation analysis for C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6+ species.

v. Pollutant Mass Emission Rate (e.g., pound s per hour) : Calculated from stack flow rate data obtained by either 1) the Environmental Protection Agency Methods 1 through 4, or 2) the Environmental Protection Agency exhaust concentration, fuel flow and fuel composition data as per EPA Method 19 , Se ctions 2.1 and 3.2.1. stack flow rate F factor (ratio of combustion gas volume to heat input), using fuel flow and fuel composition data.

v i

. Fuel rate: Appropriate District

- approved metering system, calibrated within 60 days of the test date. Publi c utility company regulated utility fuel meters relied on by operators for testing may be allowed an alternative calibration schedule per the Control Officer ‟s discretion. Results must be corrected for temperature and pressure ( standard conditions of 60°F and 29.92 inches of Mercury

.

vi i

. Determination of the Fuel Composition and Higher Heating Value : The following

a pplicable standards developed by the ASTM International: ASTM Method

1) ASTM D

- 1945

- 81 03

, “Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natura l Gas by Gas Chromatography

, ” ASTM International

,

2) ASTM Method D

- 3588

- 81 98 (2003)

, “Standard Practice for Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor , and Relative Density of Gaseous Fuels, ” ASTM International

, and

3) ASTM Method D

- 1072

- 80

. 06

, “ Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur

in Fuel Gases

, ” ASTM International,

4 ) ASTM D 240

- 02 (2007) , “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter,”

ASTM International

,

5 ) ASTM D 4809

- 06 , “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method),”

ASTM International

, and

6 ) ASTM D 1826

- 94 (2003) , “Standard Test Method for Calorific (Heating) Value of Gases in Natural Gas Range by Continuous Recording Calori meter,” ASTM International

.

The Control Officer may approve in writing alternative methods for determin in g the fuel composition or fuel higher heating value

.

Pollutant Emission Rate: Calculated from exhaust concentration, fuel flow and fuel compositio n data as per EPA Method 19, Sections 2.1 and 3.2.1.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 13 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 b. The Control Officer may approve in writing an alternative source test method provided that

such method is comparable in accuracy to the procedure in G.3.a I.7.a

. and has been

approved by the ARB Air Resources Board and the EPA Environmental Protection Agency

.

c. At a minimum, three 30 minute test runs shall be performed, and the average concentration from the three runs shall be used for determining compliance unless alternative provisions

are sp ecified in an approved source testing plan.

8

. Initial and biennial source testing requirements shall not be appl icable to a ny compression ignition engine s that are subject to an exhaust emission standard in the :

a. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2423, for off

- road engines

, or

b. 40 CFR, Part 89, for nonroad compression ignition engines

.

However, a source test shall be triggered for such engine if the result from a portable analyzer

emission s monitoring reading (e.g., a result obt ained during the monitoring required by Section F.3 )

exceed s a threshold of 560 parts per million of oxides of nitrogen at 15 percent oxygen, unless the engine is brought into compliance with th is threshold value and a follow

- up portable analyzer

monitorin g inspection is conducted within 15 days of the initial over

- the

- threshold reading.

The owner or operator of the engine shall provide written notification to the Control Officer within two business days of a portable analyzer emissions monitoring readin g in excess of the 560 parts per million of oxides of nitrogen at 15 percent oxygen threshold. In addition, portable analyzer monitoring results shall be reported to the APCD within three business days of any follow

- up quarterly portable analyzer monitor ing

.

Source testing of a Tier 1, 2, 3 or 4 engine, if triggered per the above criteria, shall be completed within 60 days of the initial over

- the

- threshold reading and shall comply with S ections I.2, I. 3, I. 4,

I. 5

. a, and I. 7.

Any compression ignition engine that triggers a source test, and demonstrates compliance with the oxides of nitrogen standard in Section E.4, shall not be subject to another source test for two years from the date of the initial compliant source test. Any compression ignition en gine that does not comply with the oxides of nitrogen standard in Section E.4 based on any source test, shall thereafter be subject to source testing on a biennial schedule starting from the date of the initial failed source

test.

H J

. Recordkeeping

1. The owner or operator of any engine subject to the requirements of this rule Section E shall maintain a

written engine Engine operation Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance log Log containing the following information for each engine subject to an emiss ion limit :

a )

. Engine classification ( rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark ignition, rich

- burn cyclically

loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition

, compression ignition, or dual

- fuel ), make, model, and serial number or the owner‟s or operator‟s unique identification number.

b. h H ours of operation , as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter, each month for each engine since the last inspection ;

.

b ) c. l L ocation and hours of engine operation of the engine a s determined by an hour meter for each engine which operates less than 200 hours per calendar year

.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 14 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 c ) d. a A summary of any maintenance performed on an emission control device ;

.

d ) e. a A summary of any maintenance performed on an engine which that affects the emission

control device

. ; and

,

e ) f. the o O bservations made in during each monthly or quarterly inspection, pursuant to the requirements of Section E F .3

.

g. Date of each log entry and the printed or typed name of the person entering the log

information

.

h

. Fo r every engine that has been relocated, a notation to that effect identifying both the present and prior locatio n, the reason(s) for the engine relocation, and the elapsed operating time meter readings for both the relocated engine and the engine being

dis placed.

2. Copies of all engine Engine Operation, inspection Inspection

, and maintenance Maintenance logs Logs

shall be retained by the operator for a minimum of 2 years after the date of the last entry and shall be available to the District upon request. Thereafter, the Logs shall be retained for an additional 3 years either at the stationary source or in a readily available location that allows for expeditious District inspection and review.

3. For an y exemption claimed under Section B.2

, maintain a w ritten Engine Exemption Log c ontaining the following information for each engine subject of the claim in accordance with the compliance

schedule in Section K :

a. Engine‟s classification ( rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark ignition, rich

- burn cyclically

- loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition

, compression ignition, or dual

fuel ), make, model, and serial number or the owner‟s or operator‟s unique identification

number

.

b. H ours of operation per quarter (or more often at the owner ‟s or operator‟s d iscretion), as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter

.

c. L ocation of operation of the engine

.

d. D ate of each log entry and the printed or typed name of the person entering the log

information

.

e. For every engine that has been relo cated, a notation to that effect identifying both the present and prior location, the reason(s) for the engine relocation, and the elapsed operating time meter readings for both the relocated engine and the engine being displaced.

At a minimum, entries in the Engine Exemption Log shall be performed on the first day the engine is operated in a new quarter and when an y engine is relocated. Copies of all such Logs shall be retained at the stationary source for a minimum of 2 years after the date of the last entry and shall be available to the District upon request. Thereafter, the Logs shall be retained for an additional 3 years either at the stationary source or in a readily available location that allows for expeditious District inspection

and review.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 15 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008

I K

. Compliance Schedule

The owner or operator of any engine subject to this r ule shall meet the following compliance schedule:

1. New engines : shall comply with this rule on the date of adoption

.

Commencing [ date of revised rule adoption ], any new engine shall comply with this rule the first time it is operated in the District or the outer continental shelf for which the District is the c orresponding

onshore area.

2

. Owners or operators of existing noncyclic engines shall comply as follows:

a. by M arch 2, 1992 submit a Compliance Plan pursuant to Section F.; and

b. by September 3, 1992 control a sufficient number of engines to meet the requirements of Section D. for a minimum of 33% of the total rated brake horsepower of the engines at the

stati onary source; and

c. by June 3, 1993 control a sufficient number of engines to meet the requirements of Section D. for a minimum of 66% of the total rated brake horsepower of the engines at the stationary source; and

d. by March 8 , 1994 control a suf ficient number of engines to meet the requirements of Section D. for all engines.

3. Owners or operators of existing cyclic engines shall comply as follows:

a. by March 2, 1992 meet the requirements of Section D.3.a.

b. Within one year or sooner from date of adoption the Board of Directors of the Air Pollution Control District shall notice a public hearing at least thirty (30) days prior to the hearing date. The hearing will be held to review additional information pertaining to the requirements of Section D.1., D.2. and D.3.b.

c. by March 3 , 1993 submit a Compliance Plan pursuant to Section F.; and

d. by March 3 , 1994 all engines shall be controlled to the limits established by the Board of

Directors of the Air Pollution Control District.

4. An existing and operating engine that is permanently shut down or electrified after the date of rule adoption can be included in determining the percent of total horsepower that meets the requirements

of Section D.

5. An application for an ATC shall be filed 120 days before the compliance date for each engine set forth in I.2.b. and 180 days for engines set forth in I.2.c., I.2.d., and I.3.d.

2. Existing Engines:

a. For any engine subject to an e mission l imit:

The Rule 333 [ date of revised rule a doption ] revisions resulted in changes in the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission limits and the addition of reactive organic compound (ROC) and

carbon monoxide emission limits as summarized in the attached Tables 1 and 2

.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 16 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 Any engine previously subject to any emission limit in the April 17, 1997 adopted Rule 333, shall continue to comply with th e emission limit (s) until such time that compliance with a

re vised emission limit is required . Further, any engine subject to a revised emission limit

, as indicate d in attached Tables 1 or 2 , shall comply with the Rule 333 Section E emission limits by [ two years from the date of revised rule adoption ] unless the engine is permanently

removed

.

Any engine that was previously exempt from Rule 333

, but became subject to Rule 333

emission limits through the [ date of revised rule adoption ] Rule 202 revisions shall comply with the Rule 333 Section E emission limits by [ two years from the date of revised rule adoption ] unless the engine is permanently removed.

An initial source test demonstrating compliance with a new or revised emission limit shall be completed in accordance with Section I prior to [ two years from the date of revised rule adoption ]. The owner or operator of a ny engine to be modified or replaced to comp ly with

the Section E emission limits shall submit an Authority to Construct application to the Control Officer by [ one year from the date of revised rule adoption ]

.

b

. For any engine that will be permanently removed from service:

i. by [ one month from t he date of revised rule adoption ], comply with the engine identification requirements in Section D.1;

ii. by [ six months from the date of revised rule adoption ], submit a statement to the Control Officer identifying the engine to be removed; and

iii. by [ two years from the date of revised rule adoption ], remove the engine.

c

. For any engine subject to the exemption in Section B.2 (operating less than 200 hours per year):

i. by [ one month from the date of revised rule adoption ], comply with the engine

id entification requirements in Section D.1 and the recordkeeping provisions in Section J.3; and

ii. by [ six months from the date of revised rule adoption ], install and comply with the metering requirements in Sections D.2

.

d

. For any engine subject to eng ine identification, plans, or metering requirements in Section

D :

i. by [ one month from the date of revised rule adoption ], comply with the engine identification requirements in Section D.1 and the recordkeeping provisions in

Section J ;

ii. by [ six month s from the date of revised rule adoption ]:

1) submit a new/revised Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan for the Control Officer‟s approval pursuant to Section F. Any previously approved Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan will continue to be in

for ce until the Control Officer approves a revised plan ; and

2) e xcept as specified in Section B.3, submit a new/revised Compliance Plan for the Control Officer‟s approval pursuant to Section G. PreviouslySanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 17 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 approved Compliance Plans will continue to be in fo rce until the Control Officer approves a revised Compliance Plan ; and

iii. by [ nine months from the date of revised rule adoption ]

, install and comply with the metering requirements in Sections D.2 and D.3

.ATTA CHMENT

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 18 April 17, 1997 June 19, 2008 Table 1: Summarized Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Limit Changes Resulting from the [

date of revised rule adoption ] Rule 333 Revision

Engine Type Category

Number April 17, 1997

Adopted Rule 333

NOx Limits [

Date of Revised

Rule Adoption ]

Adopted Rule 333

NOx Limits Effect of Change

%

Contro

l ppmv (at

1 5% O2) %

Contro

l ppmv (at

15% O2)

Rich

- Burn Noncyclically

Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 1 90 50 90 50 No change

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines in the 50 to less than 100 bhp Range 2 80 125

- 200 Increased emission

limit

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engi nes Rated 100 bhp or

Greater 3 80 125 80 125 No change

Rich

- Burn Cyclically

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 4 90 50

- 300 Increased emission

limit Compression Ignition Engines

and Dual

- Fuel Engines 5

- 797 40 700 Decreased emission

limit

Table 2: Summ arized Reactive Organic Compound and Carbon Monoxide Emission Limit Changes Resulting from the [date of revised rule adoption] Rule 333 Revision

Engine Type Category

Number April 17, 1997

Adopted Rule 333

Limits, ppmv (at

15% O2) [

Date of Revised

Rule A doption ]

Adopted Rule 333

Limits, ppmv (at

15% O2) Effect of Change

ROC CO ROC CO

Rich

- Burn Noncyclically

Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 1 250 4,500 250 4,500 No change

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines in the 50 to less than 100 bhp Range 2 750 4,50 0 750 4,500 No change

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines Rated 100 bhp or

Greater 3 750 4,500 750 4,500 No change

Rich

- Burn Cyclically

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 4 25 0 4,500 250 4,500 No change

Compression Ignition Engines

and Dual

- Fuel Engines 5

- - 7 50 4,500 New emission limit sSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 1 June 19, 2008

RULE 333. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION

ENGINES. (Adopted 12/03/1991, revised 12/10/1991, 4/17/1997 , and 6/19/2008)

A. Applicability

The provisions of this rule shall apply to any engine wi th a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater.

B. Exemptions

1. The requirements of this rule shall not apply to:

a. Spark ignition engines operating on gaseous fuel consisting of 75 percent or more of landfill gas on a volume basis determined by ann ual fuel use. To qualify for this exemption written documentation shall be submitted with the Authority to Construct application and approved by the Control Officer. The documentation must describe the fuel meters used, the level of accuracy of the fuel meters, and calculations to correct volumes to standard conditions to demonstrate compliance. Separate fuel meters shall be used that measure the volumes (cubic feet) of landfill gas and of all other gaseous fuel used. Fuel usage records shall be

maintai ned identifying the volume of landfill gas and the volume of all other gaseous fuel used annually. The following method shall be used to determine the landfill gas percentage

on a volume basis:

Volume in cubic feet of landfill ga s consumed annually x 100 Landfill Gas Percentage = Total Volume in cubic feet of all gaseous fuel consumed annually

The volumes in the above equation shall be corrected for standard conditions.

b. Engines that are exempt from permit under the provisions of Rule 202, Exemptions to Rule

201.

c. Any d erated engine having a maximum allowable and enforceable output rating of less than 50 brake horsepower, provided such rating is specified by the District in an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate and accepted by the engine owner or
operator.

d. Any compression ignition emergency standby engines, as defined under California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 93115, Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Igni tion (CI) Engines.

2. Any engine that has a total aggregated operational period less than 200 hours per calendar year is exempt from the requirements of this rule, with the exception of the engine identification requirement in Section D.1, the elapsed op erating time meter requirement in Section D.2, the recordkeeping provisions in Section J.3, and the compliance schedules for these provisions specified in Section K. The hours per year operating period of a relocated engine that performs the same function as the engine it displaced will be included in calculating the total aggregated operating period for determining applicability of this exemption.

3. Section G requirements for a Compliance Plan shall not be applicable to any compression ignition engine s that are subject to an exhaust emission standard in the:

a. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2423, for off

- road engines, or

b. 40 CFR, Part 89, for nonroad compression ignition engines.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 2 June 19, 2008

C. Definitions

See Rule 102 for definition s not limited to this rule. For the purposes of this rule, the following definitions shall apply:

“Air

- balanced pumping engine” means a noncyclically

- loaded engine powering a well pump, with the pump using compressed air in a cylinder under the front of the walking beam to offset the weight of the column of rods and fluid in the well, eliminating the need for counterweights.

“Beam

- balanced pumping engine” means a cyclically

- loaded engine powering a well pump, with the pump counterweight on the back end o f the walking beam. The counterweight is moved mechanically without a cylinder supplying air pressure.

“Crank

- balanced pumping engine” means a cyclically

- loaded engine powering a well pump, with the pump counterweight attached to a gearbox which is attac hed to the walking beam with a pitman arm. The counterweight is moved mechanically, in a circular motion, without a cylinder supplying air pressure.

“ Cyclic ally

- loaded engine ” means an engine that under normal operating conditions has an external load th at varies by 40 percent or more of rated brake horsepower during any load cycle or is used to power a well reciprocating pump including beam

- balanced or crank

- balanced pumps. Engines powering air

- balanced pumps are noncyclically

- loaded engines.

“ Engin e ” means any spark or compression ignition engine in which the pistons are contained within a cylinder and move back and forth in a straight line.

“Exhaust controls” means any device or technique used to treat an engine's exhaust to reduce emissions, and include (but are not limited) to catalysts, afterburners, reaction chambers, and chemical injectors.

“ Existing engine ” means an engine that by June 19, 2008;

1. has been issued a valid Authority to Construct, Permit to Operate, or Exemption to a Permi t to Operate (or listed as exempt on an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate) pursuant to District rules and regulations; or

2. has been identified in an application for an Authority to Construct submitted to and deemed complete by the District; or

3. has been operated in Santa Barbara County as exempt and now requires a Permit to Operate because of a Rule 202 exemption change effective June 19, 2008

.

“Four

- stroke engine” means any type of engine which completes the power cycle in two crankshaf t revolutions, with intake and compression strokes in the first revolution and power and exhaust strokes in the

second revolution.

“ Lean

- burn engine ” means any two

- stroke or four

- stroke engine where the manufacturer's recommended operating air

- to

- fuel ra tio divided by the stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio is greater than 1.1. Any existing engine where there are no manufacturer‟s recommendations regarding the air

- to

- fuel ratio will be

considered a lean

- burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the exhaus t at full load conditions is greater than 2 percent by volume. Where exhaust control is employed on such an existing engine, the exhaust gas oxygen content shall be determined from the uncontrolled exhaust stream. Any engine modification that changes an y rich

- burn engine to a lean

- burn engine or vice versa requires approval from the Control Officer in the form of a permit modification.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 3 June 19, 2008 “ New engine ” is an engine that is not an existing engine.

" Noncyclically

- loaded engine " means any engine which is not a cyclically

- loaded engine.

“ppmv” means parts per million by volume, dry.

“ Rich

- burn engine ” means any spark ignition, four

- stroke engine where the manufacturer

- recommended operating air

- to

- fuel ratio divided by the stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio i s less than or equal to 1.1. Any existing engine where there are no manufacturer‟s recommendations regarding the air

- to

- fuel ratio will be

considered a rich

- burn engine if the excess oxygen content of the exhaust at full load conditions is less than

or eq ual to 2 percent by volume. Where exhaust control is employed on such an existing engine, the exhaust gas oxygen content shall be determined from the uncontrolled exhaust stream. Any engine modification that changes any rich

- burn engine to a lean

- burn en gine or vice versa requires approval from the Control Officer in the form of a permit modification.

“Stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio” means the chemically correct air

- to

- fuel ratio where all fuel and all oxygen in the air and fuel mixture will be consume d.

“Two

- stroke engine” means a type of engine which completes the power cycle in single crankshaft revolution by combining the intake and compression operations into one stroke and the power and exhaust operations into a second stroke. This system requi res auxiliary scavenging and inherently runs lean of the

stoichiometric air

- to

- fuel ratio.

D. Requirements

– Engine Identification, Meters, and Continuous Monitoring Systems

The owner or operator of any engine subject to this rule shall ensure each engin e meets the following requirements in accordance with the compliance schedule specified in Section K.

1. Any engine subject to this rule shall have a permanently affixed plate, tag, or marking listing:

a. the engine's make, model, and serial number; or

b. the owner‟s or operator's unique identification number.

The plate, tag, or marking shall be made accessible and legible.

2. Each engine shall be equipped with a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter and the meter shall be maintained in proper op erating condition.

3. Each engine shall be equipped with a nonresettable fuel meter or, where approved by the Control Officer in writing, an alternative device, method, or technique for determining fuel consumption. The fuel meter shall be calibrated per iodically pursuant to the recommendations of the manufacturer and shall be maintained in proper operating condition.

4. Engines in the following category shall be equipped with a continuous oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and oxygen monitoring system approved by the Control Officer pursuant to an Authority to Construct:

New engines rated at 1,000 brake horsepower or greater that:

a. are installed on or after June 19, 2008 , and

b. are subject to the emission limits specified in Section E, andSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 4 June 19, 2008 c. have Permits to Operate allowing operations in excess of 2,000 hours per year.

This system shall determine and record exhaust gas oxides of nitrogen concentrations and carbon monoxide in parts per million by volume (dry), corrected to 15 percent oxyge n. The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions monitoring system or an alternative approved by the Control Officer. Alternatives to a continuous emissions monitoring system must be submitted to and approved by the Control Officer. Con tinuous emission monitoring systems shall meet the District Continuous Emission Monitoring Protocol (1992) and applicable federal requirements described in 40 CFR Part 60. These include the performance specifications found in Appendix B, Specification 2, t he quality assurance requirements found in Appendix F, and the reporting requirements of Parts 60.7(c), 60.7(d), and 60.13.

The monitoring system shall have data gathering and retrieval capability as approved by the Control Officer. All data collected by the monitoring system shall be maintained for at least two years and made available for inspection by the Control Officer. Any Control Officer approved continuous monitoring system for oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and oxygen shall suffice in

lieu of the quarterly monitoring required in Section F.3.

E. Requirements

- Emission Limits

Owners or operators of engines shall meet the following requirements in accordance with the compliance

schedule set forth in Section K:

1. Rich

- Burn Noncyclicall y

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from any such engine shall not exceed the following limits:

Limit (ppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

Pollutant

NOx 50

ROC 250

CO 4,500

b. Engines using either combustion modifications or exhaust controls shall meet the oxides of nitrogen limit specified above, or the oxides of nitrogen shall be reduced by at least 90 percent by mass of the uncontrolled emissions. For engines with exhaust controls, the percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently the oxides of nitrogen concentration upstream and downstream from the exhaust control. For engin es without external control devices, the percent control shall be based on source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine‟s typical operating param eters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and repeated at each successive post

- control source test to ensure that the engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The parts per million by volume (dry) limits for reactive organic compounds and ca rbon monoxide apply to all engines.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 5 June 19, 2008 2. Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from any such engine shall not exceed the following limits:

Any engine with a rated brake horsepower of 50 or greater bu t less than 100:

Limit (ppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

Pollutant

NOx 200

ROC 750

CO 4,500

Any engine with a rated brake horsepower of 100 or greater:

Limit (ppmv at 15 per cent oxygen)

Pollutant

NOx 125

ROC 750

CO 4,500

b. Any engine with a rated brake horsepower of 100 or greater using either combustion

modifications or exhaust controls shall meet the oxides of nitrogen requirements specified above, or the oxides of nitrogen shall be reduced by at least 80 percent by mass of the

uncontrolled emissions . For engines with exhaust controls, the percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently the oxides of nitrogen concentration upstream and downstream from the exhaust control. For engines without external control devices, the percent control shall be based on source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine‟s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and repeated at each su ccessive post

- control source test to ensure that the engine is meeting the percent reduction limit. The parts per million by volume (dry) limits for reactive organic compounds and carbon monoxide apply to all engines.

3. Rich

- Burn Cyclically

- Loaded Spa rk Ignition Engines

The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from any such engine shall not exceed the following limits:

Limit (ppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

Pollutant

NOx 3 00

ROC 250

CO 4,500Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 6 June 19, 2008 4. Compression Ignition Engines and Dual

- Fuel Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from any such engine shall not exceed the following li mits:

Limit (ppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

Pollutant

NOx 700

ROC 750

CO 4,500

b. Engines using either combustion modifications or exhaust controls shall mee t the oxides of nitrogen limit specified above, or the oxides of nitrogen shall be reduced by at least 40 percent by mass of the uncontrolled emissions. For engines with exhaust controls, the percent control shall be determined by measuring concurrently t he oxides of nitrogen concentration upstream and downstream from the exhaust control. For engines without external control devices, the percent control shall be based on source test results for the uncontrolled engine and the same engine after the control device or technique has been employed. In this situation, the engine‟s typical operating parameters, loading, and duty cycle shall be documented and repeated at each successive post

- control source test to ensure that the engine is meeting the percent red uction limit. The parts per million by volume (dry) limits for reactive organic compounds and carbon monoxide apply to all engines.

5. The use of anhydrous ammonia to meet the requirements of this rule is prohibited unless case

- specific analysis indica tes that the use is acceptable to the Control Officer.

F. Requirements

- Owner or Operator Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan

Any engine subject to the requirements of Section E shall be inspected by the engine owner or operator in

accordance with a District

- approved Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan for each stationary source. The owner or operator shall meet the following requirements for the Plan in accordance with the compliance schedule specified in Section K:

1. Obtain the Control Offi cer‟s approval of the Plan. An Inspection and Maintenance Plan for each stationary source shall be submitted to the District in a format approved by the Control Officer.

2. List all engines by engine classification (rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark i gnition, rich

- burn cyclically

- loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition, compression ignition, or dual

- fuel) and identify the method, engine and control equipment operating parameter ranges, and compliance values, including engine exhaust oxygen conc entration ranges, to be used to verify compliance

with Section E.

3. A portable emissions analyzer shall be used to take oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide emission readings and engine exhaust oxygen concentration readings to determine compliance w ith the emission limits or percent control specified in Section E during any quarter (or month, if performing monthly monitoring) in which a source test is not performed under Section I and an engine is operated in excess of 20 hours per quarter. If such an engine cannot be operated for portable analyzer emissions testing due to mechanical failure or lack of fuel, the monitoring requirement may be waived provided written Control Officer approval is obtained prior to the end of the quarter (or month, if

per forming monthly monitoring). All emission readings shall be taken at an engine‟s typical duty cycle. The analyzer shall be calibrated, maintained, and operated in accordance with the manufacturer‟s specifications and recommendations or a Control Officer approved protocol. The applicable control equipment parameters and engine operating parameters will be inspected andSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 7 June 19, 2008 monitored in conformance with a regular inspection schedule listed in the Plan. A portable analyzer instrument reading in excess of the e mission compliance values shall not be considered a violation, so long as the engine is brought into compliance and a follow

- up inspection is conducted within 15 days

of the initial out

- of

- compliance reading. If an engine owner or operator or District sta ff find an engine to be operating outside the acceptable range for control equipment parameters, engine operating parameters, engine exhaust oxides of nitrogen or carbon monoxide concentrations, the owner or operator shall bring the engine into compliance within 15 days. Also, when there has been a portable analyzer instrument reading in excess of the emission compliance values or a source test result in excess of an emission limit or less than the percent control requirement, the inspection and

maintenanc e monitoring schedule will be performed on a monthly basis and continue to be monthly until Rule 333 compliance is demonstrated in three consecutive months (by portable analyzer or source tests).

The results and readings for each engine and control equipm ent operating parameter identified in the Inspection and Maintenance Plan, the analyzer instrument readings, a description of the corrective actions taken, a determination of whether or not the engine is in compliance, and the name of the person recording the information shall be recorded in an inspection log consistent with the recordkeeping provisions specified in Section J.1.

4. Include preventive and corrective maintenance procedures. Before any change in operations can be implemented, the Plan must be revised as necessary, and the revised Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Control Officer.

G. Requirements

- Compliance Plan

The owner or operator of any engine subject to the emission limits in Section E shall submit and obtain the

Control Officer‟s approval of a Compliance Plan. A new or revised Compliance Plan for each stationary source shall be submitted to the District in a format approved by the Control Officer in accordance with the time schedule specified in Section K unless otherwi se specified by the Control Officer. The Compliance Plan shall describe all actions, including a schedule of increments of progress, which will be taken to meet the applicable emissions limitations in Section E and the compliance schedule in Section K. T he owner or operator shall ensure that the Compliance Plan meets the following requirements:

1. List of all engines by classification (rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark ignition, rich

- burn cyclically

- loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition, co mpression ignition, or dual

- fuel), make, model, serial number (or owner‟s/operator's ID number), rated brake horsepower, type of fuel (including higher heating value and percent or parts per million by volume (dry) sulfur), engine application, total hours of operation in the previous year, typical daily operating schedule, fuel consumption (cubic feet of gas or gallons of liquid) for the previous one year period, engine location and engine Permit to Operate number.

2. List manufacturer

- tested typical em ission rates or source test values, if available or documentation showing existing emissions of oxides of nitrogen, reactive organic compounds, and carbon monoxide.

3. List the applicable emission limits.

4. List the type of emission control device or method for each engine, and the temperature and flow rate of the exhaust gas, and any auxiliary devices used with the main control device (i.e., air

- to

- fuel ratio controller, exhaust gas monitor, etc.), the proposed installation completion date for each en gine to be controlled, stack modifications to facilitate continuous in

- stack monitoring and source testing.

5. An Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan, as specified in Section F, or at a minimum, a reference to and a statement incorporating the Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan into the Compliance

Plan.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 8 June 19, 2008 6. List of all existing engines planned for shutdown or electrification and the proposed date of shutdown

or electrification.

An owner or operator may modify a Compliance Plan by submitting a m odified Plan to the District at least 30 days prior to modifying the equipment or control method for any engine.

Approval of a Compliance Plan does not relieve the owner or operator of engine(s) from the permitting requirements of District Rule 201.

H

. [Reserved]

I. Requirements

- Source Testing

The owner or operator of any engine subject to the requirements of Section E shall comply with the following:

1. Except as otherwise provided in Section I.8, an initial emissions source test shall be perfo rmed on each stationary internal combustion engine to verify compliance with Section E. After the initial source test, source tests shall be performed biennially to demonstrate compliance with Section E. These source tests shall be performed within 30 d ays of the anniversary date of the initial source test, unless the Control Officer approves a period longer than 30 days. Emissions source testing shall be conducted at an engine's maximum achievable load or, at a minimum, under the engine's typical duty cycle as demonstrated by historical operational data. Source test loads shall be finalized in the source test plan approved by the District per Section I.2 . For facilities with more than 20 engines subject to Section E requirements, the Control Officer m ay, on a case

- by

- base basis, approve a source‟s written request to exclude one or more engines from biennial testing. Such a request shall be submitted with the Plan required in Section I.2.

2. A Source Test Plan shall be submitted to the District a nd the Control Officer's approval shall be obtained prior to the start of a source test. The approved Plan shall be filed with the District at least 30 days before the start of each source test. The District shall be notified of the date for source testi ng an engine at least 14 days prior to testing to arrange a mutually agreeable test date. In addition to other information, the Source Test Plan shall describe which critical parameters will be measured for those parameters specified in the Engine Inspect ion and Maintenance Plan described in Section F.

3. Source testing shall be performed by a source test contractor certified by the Air Resources Board. District required source testing shall not be performed by a source owner or operator unless approv ed by the Control Officer.

4. For each source test performed, a Source Test Report shall be submitted to the District within 45 days of completing the test. Reactive organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide concentrations shall be repo rted in parts per million by volume, corrected to 15 percent oxygen. For engines using either combustion modifications or exhaust controls , oxides of nitrogen shall be reported as a percent reduction from the combustion modification or control device.

5

. For any engine that is found not to be in compliance with Section E as a result of source testing, the

following shall apply:

a. Repeat a source test to demonstrate compliance with Section E within the time period specified by the District.

b. Not withstanding the provisions of SectionI.1, annual source tests shall be conducted on any noncompliant engine until two consecutive annual tests demonstrate the engine is in compliance with Section E. When the engine is demonstrated to be in compliance wit h Section E by two consecutive annual source tests, the engine shall comply with the provisions of SectionI.1.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 9 June 19, 2008 6. Engine operating parameters (e.g., timing, manifold vacuum pressure, valve set points, etc.) shall be established using the results of the s ource test carried out pursuant to Section I.1.

7. Test Methods

a. Source testing shall be performed in accordance with the following procedures:

i. Stack gas oxygen: Environmental Protection Agency Method 3A or Air Resources

Board Method 100.

i i. Nitrogen oxides: Environmental Protection Agency Method 7E or Air Resources

Board Method 100.

iii. Carbon monoxide: Environmental Protection Agency Method 10 or Air Resources

Board Method 100.

iv. Reactive organic compounds: Environmental Protectio n Agency Method 18 with gas chromatography

- flame ionization detection speciation analysis for C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6+ species.

v. Pollutant Mass Emission Rate (e.g., pounds per hour): Calculated from stack flow rate data obtained by either 1) the Envi ronmental Protection Agency Methods 1 through 4, or 2) the Environmental Protection Agency Method 19 stack flow rate F factor (ratio of combustion gas volume to heat input), using fuel flow and fuel composition data.

vi. Fuel rate: District

- approved m etering system, calibrated within 60 days of the test date. Public utility company regulated utility fuel meters relied on by operators for testing may be allowed an alternative calibration schedule per the Control Officer‟s

discretion. Results must be c orrected for standard conditions.

vii. Determination of the Fuel Composition and Higher Heating Value: The following applicable standards developed by the ASTM International:

1) ASTM D 1945

- 03, “Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Ga s Chromatography,” ASTM International

,

2) ASTM D 3588

- 98 (2003), “Standard Practice for Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor, and Relative Density of Gaseous Fuels,” ASTM

International

,

3) ASTM D 107206, “Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Fuel Gases,” ASTM International,

4) ASTM D 240

- 02 (2007), “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter,” ASTM International,

5) ASTM D 4809

- 06, “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hyd rocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method),” ASTM International, andSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 10 June 19, 2008 6) ASTM D 1826

- 94 (2003), “Standard Test Method for Calorific (Heating) Value of Gases in Natural Gas Range by Continuous Recording Calorimeter,” ASTM International.

The Cont rol Officer may approve in writing alternative methods for determining the fuel composition or fuel higher heating value.

b. The Control Officer may approve in writing an alternative source test method provided that such method is comparable in accuracy to the procedure in I.7.a and has been approved by the Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency.

c. At a minimum, three 30 minute test runs shall be performed, and the average concentration

from the three runs shall be used for determi ning compliance unless alternative provisions are specified in an approved source testing plan.

8. Initial and biennial source testing requirements shall not be applicable to any compression ignition engines that are subject to an exhaust emission standar d in the:

a. California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Section 2423, for off

- road engines, or

b. 40 CFR, Part 89, for nonroad compression ignition engines.

However, a source test shall be triggered for such engine if the result from a portable analy zer emissions monitoring reading (e.g., a result obtained during the monitoring required by Section F.3) exceeds a threshold of 560 parts per million of oxides of nitrogen at 15 percent oxygen, unless the engine is brought into compliance with this thresho ld value and a follow

- up portable analyzer monitoring inspection is conducted within 15 days of the initial over

- the

- threshold reading.

The owner or operator of the engine shall provide written notification to the Control Officer within two business day s of a portable analyzer emissions monitoring reading in excess of the 560 parts per million of oxides of nitrogen at 15 percent oxygen threshold. In addition, portable analyzer monitoring results shall be reported to the APCD within three business days of any follow

- up quarterly portable analyzer monitoring.

Source testing of a Tier 1, 2, 3 or 4 engine, if triggered per the above criteria, shall be completed within 60 days of the initial over

- the

- threshold reading and shall comply with Sections I.2, I .3, I.4, I.5.a, and I.7.

Any compression ignition engine that triggers a source test, and demonstrates compliance with the oxides of nitrogen standard in Section E.4, shall not be subject to another source test for two years

from the date of the initial compliant source test. Any compression ignition engine that does not comply with the oxides of nitrogen standard in Section E.4 based on any source test, shall thereafter be subject to source testing on a biennial schedule starting from the date of the i nitial failed source

test.

J. Recordkeeping

1. The owner or operator of any engine subject to the requirements of Section E shall maintain a written Engine Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance Log containing the following information for each engine subject to an emission limit :

a. Engine classification (rich

- burn noncyclically

- loaded spark ignition, rich

- burn cyclically

loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition, compression ignition, or dual

- fuel), make, model, and serial number or the own er‟s or operator‟s unique identification number.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 11 June 19, 2008 b. Hours of operation, as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter, since the last inspection.

c. Location of operation of the engine.

d. A summary of any maintenance performed on an emission control device.

e. A summary of any maintenance performed on an engine that affects the emission control

device.

f. Observations made during each monthly or quarterly inspection, pursuant to the requirements of Section F.3.

g. Date of eac h log entry and the printed or typed name of the person entering the log

information.

h. For every engine that has been relocated, a notation to that effect identifying both the present and prior location, the reason(s) for the engine relocation, and the elapsed operating time meter readings for both the relocated engine and the engine being displaced.

2. Copies of all Engine Operation, Inspection, and Maintenance Logs shall be retained for a minimum of 2 years after the date of the last entry and shall be available to the District upon request. Thereafter, the Logs shall be retained for an additional 3 years either at the stationary source or in a readily available location that allows for expeditious District inspection and review.

3. For any exemptio n claimed under Section B.2, maintain a written Engine Exemption Log containing the following information for each engine subject of the claim in accordance with the compliance schedule in Section K:

a. Engine‟s classification (rich

- burn noncyclically

- loa ded spark ignition, rich

- burn cyclically

- loaded spark ignition, lean

- burn spark ignition, compression ignition, or dual

fuel), make, model, and serial number or the owner‟s or operator‟s unique identification

number.

b. Hours of operation per quarter (or more often at the owner‟s or operator‟s discretion), as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter.

c. Location of operation of the engine.

d. Date of each log entry and the printed or typed name of the person entering the log

information

.

e. For every engine that has been relocated, a notation to that effect identifying both the present and prior location, the reason(s) for the engine relocation, and the elapsed operating time meter readings for both the relocated engine and the engine b eing displaced.

At a minimum, entries in the Engine Exemption Log shall be performed on the first day the engine is operated in a new quarter and when any engine is relocated. Copies of all such Logs shall be retained at the stationary source for a minim um of 2 years after the date of the last entry and shall be available to the District upon request. Thereafter, the Logs shall be retained for an additional 3 years either at the stationary source or in a readily available location that allows for expedit ious District inspection

and review.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 12 June 19, 2008

K. Compliance Schedule

The owner or operator of any engine subject to this rule shall meet the following compliance schedule:

1. New engines:

Commencing June 19, 2008, any new engine shall comply with this rule th e first time it is operated in the District or the outer continental shelf for which the District is the corresponding onshore area.

2. Existing Engines:

a. For any engine subject to an emission limit:

The Rule 333 June 19, 2008 revisions resulted in changes in the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emission limits and the addition of reactive organic compound (ROC) and carbon monoxide

emission limits as summarized in the attached Tables 1 and 2.

Any engine previously subject to any emission limit in the Apr il 17, 1997 adopted Rule 333, shall continue to comply with the emission limit(s) until such time that compliance with a revised emission limit is required. Further, any engine subject to a revised emission limit, as indicated in attached Tables 1 or 2, s hall comply with the Rule 333 Section E emission limits by June 19, 2010 unless the engine is permanently removed.

Any engine that was previously exempt from Rule 333, but became subject to Rule 333 emission limits through the June 19, 2008 Rule 202 revi sions shall comply with the Rule 333 Section E emission limits by June 19, 2010 unless the engine is permanently removed.

An initial source test demonstrating compliance with a new or revised emission limit shall be completed in accordance with Section I prior to June 19, 2010. The owner or operator of any engine to be modified or replaced to comply with the Section E emission limits shall

submit an Authority to Construct application to the Control Officer by June 19, 2009.

b. For any engine that will be permanently removed from service:

i. by July 19, 2008, comply with the engine identification requirements in Section D.1;

ii. by December 19, 2008, submit a statement to the Control Officer identifying the engine to be removed; and

iii. by June 19, 2 010, remove the engine.

c. For any engine subject to the exemption in Section B.2 (operating less than 200 hours per year):

i. by July 19, 2008, comply with the engine identification requirements in Section D.1 and the recordkeeping provisions in Section J.3; and

ii. by December 19, 2008, install and comply with the metering requirements in

Sections D.2.

d. For any engine subject to engine identification, plans, or metering requirements in Section

D:Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 13 June 19, 2008 i. by July 19, 2008, comply with the engine identif ication requirements in Section D.1 and the recordkeeping provisions in Section J;

ii. by December 19, 2008:

1) submit a new/revised Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan for the Control Officer‟s approval pursuant to Section F. Any previously

approve d Engine Inspection and Maintenance Plan will continue to be in force until the Control Officer approves a revised plan; and

2) except as specified in Section B.3, submit a new/revised Compliance Plan for the Control Officer‟s approval pursuant to Section G. Previously approved Compliance Plans will continue to be in force until the Control Officer approves a revised Compliance Plan; and

iii. by March 19, 2009, install and comply with the metering requirements in Sections

D.2 and D.ATTACHMENT

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333

- 14 June 19, 2008

Table 1: Summarized Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Limit Changes Resulting from the June 19, 2008 Rule 333 Revision

Engine Type Category

Number April 17, 1997

Adopted Rule 333

NOx Limits June 19, 2008

Adopted Rule 333

NOx Limits Effect of Change

%

Control ppmv (at

15% O2) %

Control ppmv (at

15% O2)

Rich

- Burn Noncyclically

Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 1 90 50 90 50 No change

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines in the 50 to less than 100 bhp Range 2 80 125

- 200 Increased emission

limit

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines Rate d 100 bhp or

Greater 3 80 125 80 125 No change

Rich

- Burn Cyclically

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 4 90 50

- 300 Increased emission

limit Compression Ignition Engines

and Dual

- Fuel Engines 5

- 797 40 700 Decreased emission

limit

Table 2: Summarized Re active Organic Compound and Carbon Monoxide Emission Limit Changes Resulting from the June 19, 2008 Rule 333 Revision

Engine Type Category

Number April 17, 1997

Adopted Rule 333 Limits, ppmv (at 15% O2) June 19, 2008

Adopted Rule 333 Limits, ppmv (at

1 5% O2) Effect of Change

ROC CO ROC CO

Rich

- Burn Noncyclically

Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 1 250 4,500 250 4,500 No change

Lean

- Burn Spark Ignition Engines in the 50 to less than 100 bhp Range 2 750 4,500 750 4,500 No change

Lean

- Burn Spark Igniti on Engines Rated 100 bhp or

Greater 3 750 4,500 750 4,500 No change

Rich

- Burn Cyclically

- Loaded Spark Ignition Engines 4 250 4,500 250 4,500 No change

Compression Ignition Engines

and Dual

- Fuel Engines 5

- - 750 4,500 New emission limitsSanta Barbara County APCDSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 1 

### PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDED RULES 102 (DEFINITIONS), 201 (PERMITS REQUIRED), 202 (EXEMPTIONS TO RULE 201), AND 333 (CONTROL OF

EMISS IONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES)

Greka Energy, January 4, 2006

1) Industry had spent considerable time in discussion with APCD for the purpose of "temporary engine replacement". With the opening of Rule 202 it seems

that this would be the perfect time for inclusion of these needed provisions. "Identical replacement” is another issue to consider while the Rule is open for

revisions.

In general, the APCD does not see the necessity to modify the rules on equipment replacements. We

ha ve a detailed policy and procedure on this subject titled “Equivalent Routine Replacement.” It is P&P 6100.073, which is available on our web page. To date, Greka Energy has not made such a request.

In addition, the APCD has a permit condition to allow f or temporary replacement of an internal combustion engine in need of routine repair or maintenance. A separate permit will not be required for the replacement engine; however the permit condition does have certain parameters that must be met in order for the temporary engine to be used without the need for a permit.

2) Various tables in the Background Paper state that engines at Armelin Lease are rated at 62 bhp. All those engines were derated to less than 50 bhp long time ago. The listing is incorrect.

The background report is using the bhp ratings from the current PTO for the facility. Greka Energy should contact the APCD compliance staff to clarify

their comment.

3) Rule 202.F.1.g: It is recommended that reference

needs to be limited to turbines th at are certified by ARB. References to natural gas, PUC, and General

Order 58

- A are requested to be removed. This would keep the exemption available for future certification of other types of fuels by ARB.

The proposed Rule 202.F.1.g allows an exemption for packs of gas turbine, provided the turbines are certified by ARB to meet the distributed generation standards. Referencing General Order 58

- A ensures that the fuel used will comply with APCD requirements. For example, fuel that does not meet this st andard has the potential for violating APCD Rule 311 and would require gas scrubbing equipment along with monitoring.

4) For determining whether a source is circumventing the rules or not, I would like to suggest incorporating a stacking test. If the ent ire system is shut down by turning off one of the units then the units are stacked.

The criterion we use is the engineering design basis and system demands. Such analysis will involve looking at the equipment’s or system’s maximum energy needs or demands under a worst

- case scenario.

For example, a project has ten 1 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) boilers with a demand that all be required at any one time. We would consider the configuration and demand equivalent to a single 10 MMBtu/ hr boiler. However, if a source installs two 4 MMBtu/hr boilers (fired exclusively on natural gas), with one for primary use and one as standby, the design heat demand is 4 MMBtu/hr. Thus, the boilers in this configuration

are not considered to be used in the same process (stacking).

5) Removing the 500 bhp exemption is not on the list

of EPA and CARB concerns. Overall it does not fit into the stated "General reason for revising the rules". Having established a 25 ton/yr limit in a separate

section of the Rule is not a strong enough reason to impose costly obligations on operators. The proposed revision has been amended to show an aggregate threshold of 400 bhp. The lower aggregate figure is needed since the single engine exemption threshold was reduc ed to less than 50 bhp from 100 bhp and derated engines will require permitting. Deleting a bhp gatekeeper altogether for sources with multiple engines in the > 20 to < 50 bhp range would allow unmitigated growth and would

become a new source review issue . Thus, the APCD is lowering the aggregate threshold figure to 400 bhp.

6) Derating of engines can be easily verified by inspectors in the field. It has been done on various inspections that I have witnessed. Additionally, removing exemptions for those e ngines could complicate Greka's operations by having someSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 2 facilities with both permitted and unpermitted engines located side by side.

A large source should already be keeping an accurate inventory of their engines and what requirements apply for each one

.

7) Monthly testing with a portable NOx analyzer is costly while the air quality benefit is unquantifiable. Greka believes that quarterly tests are adequate.

The currently proposed provisions require portable emissions analyzer checks every quarter. T his frequency will change to be monthly if an engine is found to be exceeding an emission limit. The monthly frequency will continue until Rule 333 compliance is demonstrated in three consecutive months (by portable analyzer readings or source test result s).

Also, the quarterly requirement will only apply to engines that operate in excess of 20 hours per

quarter.

8) If the ICE exemption limit is changed to 25 ton/yr, the addition of a bhp exemption limit could facilitate easier compliance with the Rule.

The APCD agrees to use an aggregate brake horsepower rating instead and has modified Rule 202.F.1.f to be 400 bhp for engines in the > 20 to < 50 bhp range.

Vandenberg Air Force Base, January 10, 2006

a. Rule 102 comments:

(1) VAFB requests the A PCD add a definition for process and concurs with the 8 Dec 05 APCD request for examples of processes for inclusion in the APCD staff report.

As discussed at the December 8, 2005 Workshop, the APCD believes that this question is best handled by providing real

- life examples. Our general concern is that a process that effectively exceeds the exemption threshold should obtain a permit. We look at the engineering design basis and system requirements in making these stacking determinations.

b. Rule 202 comm ents:

(1) 202.d.5

- Temporary equipment: VAFB requests

the APCD add within 14 days after the clause ... who shall make a determination in writing ... Including an APCD suspense provides the operator the opportunity to plan a temporary operation without the risk of incurring an APCD enforcement action by performing the temporary operation only to find out at some future date that the APCD denied the temporary use.

The 202.D.5 exemption allows a source to move forward without having to wait for the APCD’s

app roval. If there is any doubt as to whether the exemption applies, the source should wait for APCD concurrence. Based on our experience, those wishing APCD concurrence do get our feedback with 14 days already.

(2) 202.d.7

- Stationary Source Permit Exe mption:

Add within 14 days after the clause ... who shall make a determination in writing

...

A determination that an entire source may be exempt by the 1 ton per year exemption may take the APCD more than 14 days.

(3) 202.d.15

- Process: VAFB concurs with the 8 Dec 05 APCD request to stakeholders for providing specific examples in the Background Paper similar to the examples used for the Net Emission Increase (NEI) discussed in the 1997 Regulation II/VIII Staff Report.

See response to the Greka Energy J anuary 4, 2006,

item 4.

Additionally, VAFB understands the APCD does not apply this verbiage to Prohibitory Rules or New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) applicability. 1
On the applicability of prohibitory rules or NSPS requirements to stacked equipmen t, the APCD applies the prohibitory rules and other regulations (e.g., NSPS, NESHAPS) on an individual device basis unless otherwise specified in the rule or regulation.

(4) 202.d.16: The 25 ton construction cap. The existing exemption states:

Not withstanding any exemption in these rules and regulations, if the combined emissions from all construction equipment used to construct a stationary source which requires an Authority to

Construct (emphasis added) have the potential to exceed 25 tons of any pollutant, except carbon monoxide, in a12 month period, the owner of the

1 APCD 8 December 2005 wor kshop response to VAFB question.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 3 stationary source shall provide offsets as required under the provisions of Rule 804 and shall demonstrate that no ambient air quality standard

would be violated.

(a) VAFB is co ncerned that an interpretation might be made that includes all construction projects within a stationary source for the 25 ton total. For example, VAFB does not believe that a water line project or construction of a building, not requiring an ATC, is subj ect to this 25 ton cap. This is analogous with other construction projects occurring in Santa Barbara County (e.g. Housing developments or large parking structures). VAFB request the Background Paper clarify that it does not apply to construction project s where no specific APCD ATC is required. This provides a straightforward rule interpretation.

The method for determining that a construction activity may be subject to offsets under the proposed new Rule 202.D.16 provision will be the same method used f

or the current Rule 202.F.3 provision.

(b) 202.d.16: Per the discussion occurring at the 8 December 2005 APCD workshop between VAFB and Mr. Mike Goldman, VAFB requests the APCD replace the phrase Potential to Exceed with Projected

Actual . Mr. Gol dman stated this is the APCD intent.

We concur. The APCD’s practice has been to use “projected actual” emissions for this calculation.

(5) United States government owned marine vessels. 202.F.1.b states: Engines used to propel marine vessels, except vessels associated with a stationary source which shall be regulated as specified under the provisions of Regulation VIII.

(a) VAFB proposes inclusion of the following verbiage for Rule 202.F.1.b after Regulation VIII: except marine vessels owned by the United States Government, or its allies, supporting military operations.

(b) Alternatively, in lieu of adding additional language to the rule, VAFB proposes the APCD clarify within the Background Paper that the intent of 202.F.1.b does not apply to above

- mentioned marine

vessels.

(c) VAFB believes these marine vessels operate similarly to on

- shore military tactical support equipment and operations and should be exempted from permitting requirements or subject to New Source Review provisions. These marine vessels owned by the U.S. Department of Defense, or its allies, and the National Guard, are deployable, used in combat, combat support, combat service support, tactical or relief operations, or training for such operations.

(d) VAFB co nsiders these types of military vessels and training exercises as essential to maintaining National Defense. Requiring APCD permits impacts the Department of Defense‟s ability to perform essential missions in a timely manner and could pose unacceptable re strictions on equipment use and/or operational scenarios.

(e) Emissions associated with these marine vessel operations are not significant. Attachment 2 provides emissions associated with a proposed project at VAFB. VAFB emphasizes that these mari ne vessel

activities occur on an as

- needed basis. The last military marine operation occurred in 2002 with the

vessel anchored outside the California Coastal Waters boundary.

The APCD has included provisions in Rule 202, Sections F.7, F.8, and P.14 to ad dress the emissions from marine vessels.

(6) 202.F.1.d

– Emergency use: Add the following verbiage after internal combustion engines: or gas turbine engines.

(a) VAFB believes these units can be used for emergency standby and should receive the 20 0 hour exemption.

(b) In the past, VAFB considered replacing diesel

back

- up generators by installing new cleaner burning gas turbines or micro turbines. Unfortunately, APCD rules do not exempt emergency use for gas turbines. These units are subjec t to APCD New Source Review (NSR) 2 . Because of these NSR requirements, VAFB continues to operate diesel engines negating the opportunity for an air quality benefit.

(c) Attachment 3 provides an emission comparison

for a non

- EPA certified engine, a na tural gas

- fired turbine and an EPA certified Tier II engine.

It has been our experience that microturbines operate best in a continuous operating mode and are not generally used in a standby emergency mode.

2 NSR at VAFB includes offsetting, an AQIA and a

HRA.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 4 We are proposing amendments to Rule 202.F.1.g t o allow for limited “grouping/multi

- packing” of microturbine engines under certain conditions. Such systems allow increases in power output as the

electrical demands increase.

Due to gas turbines generally not being used for emergency standby coupled w ith the new 202.F.1.g provisions, the APCD does not agree that gas microturbines need to be added to the emergency engine exemption (Rule 202.F.1.d).

(7) 202.F.1.f. Multiple

- engines exemption. VAFB requests the APCD to:

(a) Change the PTE requi rement to actual

emissions 3 , or

(b) Reduce the current 500 horsepower cap to a lower horsepower cap that is equivalent to a 25 ton limit, or

(c) Provide the operator a choice to either calculate the actual emissions or track the horsepower.

(d) If the 25 ton per year cap remains unchanged, VAFB requests the APCD provide clarification for calculating the potential to emit (or projected actual emissions) associated with equipment operating on a temporary basis at a stationary source.

The APCD agrees to use an aggregate brake horsepower rating instead and has modified Rule 202.F.1.f to be 400 bhp for engines in the > 20 to < 50 bhp range. The approach to allow sources to choose between tracking actual emissions or bhp would add too much complex ity and would increase APCD costs. For that reason, a single methodology

is used.

(8) 202.U.3 states “Equipment used in wipe cleaning operations provided that the solvents used do not exceed 55 gallons per year. To qualify for this exemption, the owner or operator shall maintain

records of the amount of solvents used for each calendar year. These records shall be kept for a minimum of 3 years and be made available to the District on request. Solvents meeting the criteria of

2.b. or c. above do not con tribute to the 55 gallon per year limitation.”

3 VAFB understands additional recordkeeping is required to track these actual emissions. (a) VAFB proposes the APCD remove the 55 gallon limit and replace it with an emission cap. Throughput limits encourage maximum VOC

- content use and penalize an operator who decides to apply a

low VOC so lvent. As written, the 55 gallon does not provide an incentive to eliminate higher emitting VOC solvents applied in wipe cleaning operations.

This exemption was added for and is primarily used by small businesses. It is far easier for the companies to u nderstand the requirements in terms of 55 gallons than mass emissions

c. Rule 333 comments:

(1) 333.E.4. VAFB requests the APCD provide a brief discussion in the Background Paper regarding the new limits for ROC and CO for diesel engines.

At the 8 December 2005 workshop, Mr. Doug Grapple indicated these limits came from the CARB RACT/BARCT Guidance document. For clarity, VAFB requests the APCD provide that discussion in the staff report.

The emission limits for the spark ignition engines stem fro m the ARB RACT/BARCT determination. The basis for the compression ignition engine emission limits stem from other districts’ rules. We are using the NOx and ROC limits from the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Rule 412, and the CO limits from the Ventura Co unty APCD Rule 74.9. This information is found within the rule development support document.

(2) 333.F.3 and I.8. VAFB requests the APCD delete the monthly NOx box requirement because of potential inaccuracies associated with different types

of monitor ing equipment. VAFB is concerned that the lack of accurate traceability may result in an APCD enforcement action during biennial source testing. At the 8 December 2005 workshop, Mr. Doug Grapple indicated this requirement came from

the CARB RACT/BARCT Gu idance document.

Periodic NOx box testing and method testing are components of the existing Rule 333 compliance verification provisions. These components are also

within the CARB RACT/BARCT Determination.

The currently proposed provisions require porta ble emissions analyzer checks every quarter. This frequency will change to be monthly if an engine is found to be exceeding an emission limit. The monthly frequency will continue until Rule 333 compliance isSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 5 demonstrated in three consecutive months (by

p ortable analyzer readings or source test results).

Also, the quarterly requirement will only apply to engines that operate in excess of 20 hours per

quarter.

(3) 333.I

– Requirements, Source Testing: If the APCD demonstrates that the portable analyzer , as discussed above, meets the rigorous protocols for accuracy, VAFB requests the APCD add the following verbiage:

(a) 333.I.2. The APCD may waive the source testing requirements if monthly compliance tests demonstrate continued compliance over 12

c onsecutive months.

(b) VAFB advocates if a source can demonstrate and maintain compliance with the emission standards over 12 consecutive months, there should be no additional biennial source testing compliance requirements.

Source testing using EPA or ARB test methods is a necessary part of the APCD’s compliance program and requiring these biennial source tests is consistent

with the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination.

(4) 333.I.7.c. VAFB requests the 15 minute clock average be deleted or add additio nal discussion in the Background Paper. At the 8 December 2005 workshop, Mr. Doug Grapple indicated these limits

came from the CARB RACT/BARCT Guidance document. VAFB is concerned that an engine complying with a 30

- minute source test will still

receive a n NOV where any 15 minute clock average exceeds a Section E limit during a source test.

The proposed amended Rule 333, Section I.7.c no longer refers to a 15 minute clock average. This provision now indicates:

At a minimum, three 30 minute test runs shall be performed, and the average concentration from the three runs shall be used for determining compliance.

Southern California Gas Company, January 18, 2006 (Rule 202)

Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the District‟s proposed revisions to

Rule 202

- Permit Exemptions. Our comments address stacking, and the new micro

- turbine exemption. We request modification of the proposed

micro

- turbine exemption (Rule 202.F.1.g).

The Gas Co mpany appreciates that the District has included a proposed exemption for power

- generating

micro

- turbines in Rule 202. As you may know, last year The Gas Company and the District resolved a number of permitting issues during a meeting with Terry Dressler, Peter Cantle, Mike Goldman, and District Council, Bill Dillon. At that meeting, Peter and Terry agreed that an exemption for power

generating micro

- turbines above a heat input rating of 3 million British thermal units (BTU) made sense to promote the use of micro

- turbines for distributed generation. We also discussed that the next time Rule 202 was modified such an exemption would be pursued.

Power

- generating micro

- turbines have been eligible for exemption under the Rule 202 provision for gas

turbine e ngines with a maximum heat input rating of 3 million BTU. The proposed rule revisions in 202.D.15 clarifies that one must aggregate the heat input of multiple units in a single process up to a

combined total of 3 MM BTU/Hr. The Gas Company appreciates th at the District is codifying its stacking policy with the addition of this language. The proposed exemption language in draft Rule 202.F.1.g gives special consideration for power

generating micro

- turbines as discussed between the District and The Gas Comp any at the 2005 meeting. The special consideration would allow for multiple

power

- generating micro

- turbines in a single process

that exceed a combined total of 3 MM BTU/Hr if their combined potential annual emissions do not

exceed 1 ton for each affected pollutant except carbon monoxide (CO), which shall not exceed 5

tons.

The proposed exemption for multiple power

generating micro

- turbines in 202.F.1.g is inconsistent with other exemptions allowed in Rule 202. We understand that the language for the em ission limits in 202.F.1.g came from another section of Rule 202 or another district rule. The other exemptions with emission limits in Rule 202 most often have higher emission limits. For example, Rule 202.D.16 and 202.F.1.f have limits for potential to emit of 25 tons per year except CO, which has no limit. Although the

limits of 1 ton and 5 tons are the same in both 202.D.5 and 202.F.1.g, 202.D.5 uses projected actual emissions versus 202.F.1.g which uses potential

emissions. Potential emissions are always higher than actual emissions as potential emissions are calculatedSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 6 with operations of 24 hours per day and 365 days per year rather than a more realistic operation schedule.

We based the Rule 202.F.1.g one ton and five tons (CO) thresholds on the thresholds in the Rule 202.D.5 exemption that was added in 1997. The emission thresholds in Rule 202.D.5 were developed based on input received from EPA. We recognize that “potential annual emissions” are typically greater than “projected actuals.” Howeve r, we decided to use “potential annual emissions” to be more protective.

The four certified power

- generating micro

- turbines that are being installed at The Gas Company‟s La Goleta storage field do not meet either 202.D.15 or the proposed criteria of Rule 202.F.1.g. Each of these 60 kW turbines is rated at approximately 0.8 MM BTU/Hr for a combined total heat input of approximately 3.2 MM BTU/Hr. This combination exceeds the exemption threshold of 3 MM BTU/Hr, thus the equipment does not qualify for exem ption under 202.D.15. Using the emission standards specified by CARB for certification to calculate potential to emit, the four 60 kW turbines meet all parts of 202.F.1.g except for the volatile organic compound (VOC) and CO limits. Therefore, the

propos ed annual potential to emit limits precludes exemption for the four micro

- turbines. This is the outcome despite the fact that the manufacturer‟s emission factors are less than the CARB standards,

and annual actual emissions will be less than1 ton and

5 to ns per year for CO. Calculations for potential

emissions of the 60 kW micro

- turbines at the Laguna
Sanitation District were also based on CARB‟s

certification emission standards rather than manufacturer‟s emission factors. It appears that there may be no qualifying equipment if the 202.F.1.g exemption remains as currently drafted.

Calculations using limits in the distributed generation regulation and based on manufacturer’s data on fuel consumption show the number of units

that can be stacked without ex ceeding the emission limits thresholds of proposed Rule 202.F.1.g is a function of how clean they operate. The distributed generation regulation has stricter emission standards starting in 2007, which may allow the stacking of more units per project under the 1 ton and 5 ton

limits.

The Gas Company requests that proposed 202.F.1.g be changed to read as follows:

• Gas turbine engines with a maximum heat input rating of 3 million British thermal units per hour or less at standard conditions. No gas tur bine engine otherwise subject to permit shall be exempt because it has been derated. For the purposes of this section, power generating microturbines fired on natural gas which meets

General Order 58

- A of the Public Utility

Commission that have been certi fied by the Air Resources Board to meet the applicable distributed generation standards certified by a

current Air Resources Board Executive Order are not subject to the provisions of Section D.15 if such power generating microturbines at a stationary sour ce have a total uncontrolled potential to emit for any affected pollutant, except carbon monoxide of 25 tons or greater.

We believe this is very reasonable request as many other exemptions contain no limit for carbon

monoxide and carbon monoxide is not a problem pollutant in Santa Barbara County. As you know, Santa Barbara County is attainment for both the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for carbon monoxide. We believe that these suggested changes will promote the use of cleaner micro

turbines for distributed generation. In addition, the language change assures that the special consideration for power

- generating micro

- turbines

will in fact allow additional installation of this clean technology.

The EPA indicated in a letter dated Aug ust 8, 1995 that the proposed 202.D.5 exemption for CO be removed because, “Federal requirements do not allow any NSR exemptions for CO emissions.” Thus, a gatekeeper for CO is needed to ensure EPA approval.

Southern California Gas Company, January 18, 2 006 (Rule 333)

Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the District‟s proposed revisions to

Rule 333

- Engine Requirements. Our comments address proposed Rule 333.D Requirements

– Engine

Identi fication, Meters, and Continuous Monitoring Systems, and Rule 333.I Requirements

- Source Testing. We also are requesting modification of parts of the proposed rule.

Proposed Rule 333.D.4 will require engines of 1000 rated brake horsepower (bhp) or gre ater and permitted to operate in excess of 2000 hours per year

to install and maintain continuous emissionsSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 7 monitoring systems (CEMS) for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and oxygen (O2). At The Gas Company‟s La Goleta storage field, engine MU #9, an 1100 bhp

eng ine, would be subject to this requirement. The District‟s background paper, dated 11

- 21

- 2005, notes that this proposed requirement stems from the CA Air Resources Board (CARB) Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

and Best Availa ble Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). The Gas Company believes that CARB‟s

RACT/BARCT determination allows for other equipment or methodology besides just CEMS. CARB‟s RACT/BARCT determination, on page IV

17, §J

– Continuous Monitoring, states, “CEMS may be used to fulfill this requirement. Each district‟s Air Pollution Control Officer may consider alternatives, if adequate verification of the systems accuracy and performance is provided.”

We are now proposing that the 333.D.4 provisions apply to “ new” engines only. The APCD believes the requirement to use a CEMS is the most effective compliance tool.

We request and believe that there are many reasons that our engine should be grandfathered, and not be required to install continuous monitoring equ ipment. They are as follows:

• There will be no discernable air quality benefit from installation of CEMS on the three existing engines (including MU #9) in this category. This is bolstered by the fact that MU #9 has never been out of compliance in an y quarterly emission inspection or

biennial source test. • MU #9 is on the La Goleta storage field Title V permit and is subject to stringent Title V requirements.
• The CARB costs for CEMS cited in Table 4.7

- 6 of the Rule 333 Background Report, do not c apture the full cost of CEMS installation, operation, and

maintenance. • What CARB identifies as "Capital Cost" is only enough to cover the purchase of the CEMS cabinet and sampling system. In our experience, quality CEMS equipment costs between $80,000

- $100,000, but this does not include: engineering, procurement, and permitting; infrastructure improvements including electrical, communications, air conditioning, structural supports, footings, or housings; construction, installation, commissioning,

cert ification, and training; data acquisition and reporting systems ($20,000

- $40,000 for quality systems with good user interface); and site specific requirements such as special electric codes (Class 1 Division 2 hazardous locations).
• Table 4.7

- 7 referen ces a $7,500 annual operational and maintenance cost. This value will cover calibration gas, consumable and spare parts, and quality assurance activities (quarterly CGA, and annual RATA,) but does not capture: o Labor for daily system check and

troublesh ooting of CEMS system problems, o data validation and reporting, o vendor support or service agreements for CEMS equipment and/or data acquisition systems,

and o electricity used by analyzers, heated sample lines, and air conditioning.

For example, i n 2002, The Gas Company installed 5 CEMS at one of our facilities for a total project cost of $1,200,000, or $240,000/CEMS. The $63,000 cost used in Table 4.7

- 7 is quite low; it realistically costs approximately $200,000 to install
one CEMS. In addition, The Gas Company has found that it takes approximately one full time equivalent position (whether employee or contract) to support 5 CEMS. We estimate that realistic annual CEMS operation and maintenance costs are approximately $20,000

- $25,000.

In su mmary, we request that our engine be grandfathered, and that we not be required to install continuous monitoring equipment.

The APCD has added text to the proposed Rule 333.D.4 provision that makes it applicable to new engines only.

The section of prop osed Rule 333.I Requirements

- Source Testing adds many new provisions. Our

comments on this section are as follows: 1. Proposed Rule 333.I.1 will require emissions source testing at both an engine‟s maximum achievable load and under the engine‟s typica l duty cycle. At La Goleta, our goal is to run the engines at maximum horsepower, which gives maximum efficiency. But during some times of the year, this is not possible.

As you may know our facility is seasonal, and the engines are used regularly dur ing the injection season (April through October) and rarely during withdrawal season (November through March). Our La Goleta facility is not able to create artificial additional load during the early part of the injection season, nor during times of lower gas flow from the transmission system (low suction pressure). During the early part of the injection season, the storage reservoirs containSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 8 less gas inventory due to winter withdrawals. This depleted condition has lower back pressure and lower horsepowe r is required for gas injection. Because of the varying nature of our operations, it would be difficult to define the “typical duty cycle” for any of our compressor engines.

We request that this section be modified such that emissions source testing of our engines will be performed at their achievable load at the time of the test, whatever that may be due to storage inventory and gas availability from the transmission system. In general, this load is within 85% of the maximum achievable load, which mea ns the typical load range spans only 15% of the engine's rating. When the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) had concerns about RECLAIM exhaust flow CEMS accuracy over the operating range, they recognized the difficulty in obtaining spec ific loads for testing, and the fact that a given load can be representative for a wider range. As a result, they established guidance to require testing in each 20% load increment over several years of testing. Since our “typical duty cycle” is within 2 0% of maximum achievable load, in SCAQMD we did not need to conduct tests at multiple loads. Testing at multiple loads is not justifiable and is onerous. We also note that this requirement for dual load testing is not a requirement of either the SCAQMD o r the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, thus we believe that this requirement is not part of any “all feasible measures” rule in the state and could

be removed or modified.

During an annual or biennial comprehensive source

test, it is our practice to test emission units at the maximum load feasible. At a minimum, source test loads must reflect loads representative of typical operations. For a monthly or quarterly I&M, we will accept tests at normal operational loads. Also, the quarterly portable analyzer monitoring requirement will only apply to engines that operate in excess of 20 hours per quarter.

2. Proposed Rule 333.I.7.c has new requirements that “Any 15 minute clock average exceeding a Section E limit during any test run constitutes an emission violation”. The new 15 minute averaging period is a de facto lowering of the emission standard.

The nature of rich

- burn engines and their control technology does not support such a short averaging

time. Emissions of these units are not steady state

and will wander both above and below the limit. Shorter averaging times just create more possibility for violations and fines despite the overall emissions being well within the limit.

To achieve the lower emissions average needed for compliance with the 15 minute rolling average, it is possible that existing control systems will need to be completely redesigned. In the background paper, we found no discussion of these potential cost increases to meet this new requirement. Further , we found no specific averaging time is required in CARB‟s

RACT/BARCT determination. La Goleta‟s air district permit specifies three

– 40 minute test periods, thus we have a 40 minute averaging period. We request that our permitted, existing 40 minute

a veraging period remain in effect.

See response to the VAFB January 10, 2006 letter, item c(4).

3. Proposed Rule 333.I.8 has new requirements for monthly monitoring with a portable analyzer. “During any month in which a source test is not performed and an engine is operated in excess of 5 hours, a portable analyzer shall be used to take oxides of nitrogen and carbon monoxide emission readings and engine exhaust oxygen concentration readings to verify compliance with the emission limits or percent

control specified in Section E. If such an engine cannot be operated for portable analyzer emissions testing due to mechanical failure or lack of fuel, the monitoring requirement may be waived provided written Control Officer approval is obtained prior to

the en d of the month. All emission readings shall be taken at an engine‟s maximum achievable load and under the engine‟s typical duty cycle.”

The Gas Company‟s concerns with this new requirement are as follows:

a. Currently La Goleta personnel conduct qua rterly emissions testing as required by existing Rule 333. Additionally, for engines 2 through 8, we parametrically monitor the engine exhaust by observing the oxygen sensor output at a minimum of one time per six hours of engine operation. In accordance with federally mandated Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM), we log a minimum of one oxygen sensor output millivolt read for each day the engine
operates.

The engines affected by this proposed rule change are Main Unit Gas Compressors. As previous d iscussed, operation of these Main Units is predominately seasonal, occurring during the warmer months of the year when gasSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 9 is available for storage. During the colder months, gas is taken out of storage and the engines are rarely needed. However, in the colder months these engines operate sporadically if there is excess gas available for storage in the Southern California gas transmission system. Availability of gas in the gas transmission system is a function of supply, demand, weather,

and CA Public Ut ilities Commission‟s (CPUC) rules pertinent to gas transmission and storage. The decision of, if and when to operate these engines is made on an hourly/daily basis by The Gas Company‟s Gas Control Operations in Los Angeles as they continually balance the transmission system. Operations of these engines may occur any day, anytime and for any length of time. The facility operates with a one person crew during nights, weekends, and holidays. It would be extremely burdensome and dangerous to expect the one person on duty to sample the operating engines exhaust during the periods of infrequent and sporadic use. It is likely that portable analyzer emissions testing would be missed, not from neglect, but simply from the nature of the gas transmission system,

i ts interaction with the facility, and work load of the one person crew on nights, weekends, and holidays shifts.

Portable analyzer emissions‟ testing is not simply a matter of starting an engine and checking the exhaust. Our engines need gas to

compres s to have a load which develops horsepower. Excess gas for compression is not always available, particularly during the cold months in which the primary mode of operation is withdrawal rather than injection. Even with the current quarterly portable analy zer emissions testing requirement, we have to request Gas Control Operations to artificially manipulate the system to provide enough gas to compress. Because of sporadic operations during the injection season, we often start the engines for the sole purpo se of portable analyzer emissions testing, creating unnecessary emissions, just to stay in compliance with the quarterly inspection frequency.

The Gas Company requests that the requirement for portable analyzer emissions testing remain quarterly during low season operations. This suggested alternative for seasonal operations could be conditional upon written approval from the Air Pollution Control Officer. For example, La Goleta could be approved for an alternate monitoring schedule, such as: January t hrough

March

- Quarterly, April through September

Monthly, and October through December

Quarterly. We feel that we have provided ample justification for such an alternative.

See the response for Greka Energy, January 4, 2006,

item 7.

Western States Petrol eum Association,

January 18, 2006

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

is a non

- profit trade association representing a full spectrum of companies which explore for, produce, refine, transport, and market petroleum products in

the six western states. WSPA staff and its Coastal Air Strategy Group (CASG) members have reviewed the November 21, 2006 [SIC] Background Paper, Revisions to Definitions (Rule102), Permit Exemptions (Rule 202) And Engine Requirements (Rule 333). In addition, WSPA staff a nd its CASG members participated in the December 8, 2005 rulemaking workshop. Based upon the workshop discussion and our review of the background paper, WSPA„s comments and questions on the proposed rulemaking are attached and organized in the following manner:

1) General comments on the proposed rulemaking including removal of Rule 202 exemptions for internal combustion engines used for offshore drilling operations and construction projects.

2) Consistency of the SBCAPCD proposed rulemaking with EPA‟s 1995 rulemaking

comments.

3) Consistency of the SBCAPCD proposed rulemaking with CARB‟s Reasonably Available Control technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) Guidelines, dated November 1, 2001.

General Comments on the Pro posed Rulemaking

1) Rule 202.F.6: Deletion of the exemption for offshore drilling activities

WSPA and its member companies are very concerned over the proposed elimination of the drilling exemption contained in Rule 202. These concerns center not only o n the proposed deletion of this long standing exemption, but the manner in which this proposed revision was presented to WSPA and ourSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 10 members. The SBCAPCD has on several occasions

informed WSPA that it did not intend to eliminate this exemption. The SBCA PCD did not provide any prior notice to WSPA of this exemption deletion before the District‟s Background Paper was released for comment. This process was very perplexing to WSPA, given the fact that the SBCAPCD is well aware of the importance of this exemp tion to WSPA

and its members.

The revisions to Rule 202.F.6, adopted by the SBCAPCD Board in April 1997, provided a 25

- ton gatekeeper for drilling operation offshore. As with other Rule 202 exemptions approved by the Board in April 1997, this gatekeepe r was deemed to be protective of air quality. It should be noted that in 1997 these Rule 202 revisions were adopted when Santa Barbara County was in nonattainment for the federal ozone standard. Currently, Santa Barbara County is in attainment of the fed eral ozone standard, and is on the threshold of attaining the State of

California ozone standard.

In the Background Paper, the SBCAPCD states that: “Portable offshore equipment engines no longer need their own exemption in Rule 202. The owners and

op erators of such engines should be registering them in the statewide portable equipment registration program [PERP].” The revisions to Rule 202 adopted by the Board in March 2005 and promulgated by EPA into the Part 55 OCS regulations allow the use of PERP engines offshore. However, there are many engines which are used for drilling activities offshore that are either not currently eligible for the PERP, or the engines come from other parts of the country or the world, and the contractor owner of the engine can not certify the engine into the

PERP. In addition, although most drilling operations are transitory in nature, these projects often last more

than 12 months. This fact alone limits the effective use of PERP engines. WSPA was a supporter of the

use of PERP engines in the OCS since it provided greater flexibility for the operators and an air quality benefit. It was never intended as a complete replacement for existing exemptions. Therefore, WSPA strongly requests that this permit exemption

not be elimina ted.

In general, portable engines that lose their APCD exemption will be accepted by the ARB for registration as in

- use engines. The APCD is also adding a new permit exemption for “specialty equipment” in response to concerns raised by the regulated comm unity. 2) Rule 202 F.3: Deletion of the exemption for

construction activities

The SBCAPCD proposed to revise Rule 202 and to eliminate the exemption for construction activities in 2001 and 2002. The SBCAPCD decided not to go forward with the proposed r ulemaking at that time. However, on January 3, 2002, WSPA provided comments to the SBCAPCD on the proposed elimination of this exemption. Included below is an updated version of these comments, which demonstrate WSPA‟s opposition to the proposed

deletion of the construction exemption.

The elimination of the construction exemption from the rule is a significant matter for WSPA as well as other entities in the county. Industry, especially the offshore oil and gas industry, relies on this exemption

for lar ge short

- term construction projects. Similar to the proposed deletion of offshore drilling exemption, PERP engines are not always available for these projects. The SBCAPCD must remember that the whole body of their rules must be considered when making ch anges to any one part. The lack of any available offsets in the county and the lack of reasonable rules to allow temporary use of offsets preclude the ability of companies to conduct normal business projects. WSPA suggests that a revision of

the offset r ules (e.g. temporary leasing of offsets) be completed before the construction exemption is

amended.

WSPA does not concur with the SBCAPCD that the construction exemption needs to be eliminated. The fact that other air quality districts in Californ ia do not have a similar exemption is not a technically based reason and is certainly not based on any air quality related concern. The SBCAPCD Board approved this exemption on December 8, 1987. The December 8, 1987 Board letter provided findings for the construction engine equipment exemption (Reference page 9). This report section, Engines Used in Construction Activities, states the following:

The intent of the proposed Rule revision regarding construction is to protect air quality standards.

Theref ore, the proposed Rule 202, Section C.3. is

formulated so that if construction emissions at a stationary source, which requires a District permit, exceed 25 tons of any pollutant (except for carbon monoxide) in a twelve month period, the stationary source operator would be responsible for obtaining emission offsets for the construction

emissions.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 11 Based on this evidence, the construction exemption is not antiquated. It was established to “protect our air quality” from emissions from construction projects

. There is no evidence in the 1987 Rule 202

- revision rulemaking record which indicates that the SBCAPCD intended to control general construction emissions other than those utilized for large projects.

This concept was validated in the 1997 SBCAPCD

Rule 202 rulemaking staff report. On page 3

- 3 of that staff report, the SBCAPCD states:

The APCD‟s overall objective in revising Rule 202 is to keep small inconsequential activities/sources/emissions out of the permitting program so it can focus on larger so urces that represent the vast majority of pollution from stationary sources in the county.

The SBCAPCD followed this objective and did not revise the Rule 202 construction exemption during the 1997 rulemaking process. The 25

- ton per year gatekeeper con tained within this exemption was consistent with the 25 ton per year gatekeeper adopted in other Rule 202 exemptions.

Again, the air quality results are clear. The County of

Santa Barbara has achieved attainment of the Federal

ozone standards. The SBC APCD approved the 2004 Clean Air Plan that projected maintenance of these

ozone standards without the need of further control measures to be imposed on diesel construction engines. Therefore, there is no justification to remove this exemption at this tim e.

The adoption of the CARB Portable Diesel

- Fueled Engine ATCM regulation has impacted the basis for exempting construction equipment. The best ways to implement the ATCM are through the CARB PERP and the local APCD’s permitting processes. Thus,

there is a need to remove the well drilling and construction engine exemptions to facilitate the implementation of the portable engine ATCM.

3) Proposed “Stacking” provision, Rule 202.D.15

The District is proposing a “stacking” provision in this rulemaking. Eng ines used in the “same process” will require that the individual brake horsepower (bhp) ratings of each engine be added together with the other engines used in the same process. If that rating is greater than 50 bhp, then all of the engines will be requir ed to be permitted. WSPA believes that this is a sensible requirement for operators attempting to circumvent the permitting of proposed projects. However, the definition of “used in the same process” needs to be carefully defined in

this current rulema king process. This rule revision should only apply to new engine applications and not to engines already under permit. In addition, this “stacking” concept should not apply to prohibitory

rules or to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

For example, this concept is especially significant for operations at onshore oil and gas fields where there are banks of engines at wastewater pumping facilities within the facility leases. Currently, these individual engines are rated lass [SIC] than 50 bhp, and the y are not required to be controlled under the provisions of Rule 333. These existing engines should not be considered as being in the "same process”, and the aggregate horsepower of the pump engines should not be used to determine emission control require ments
under Rule 333.

See response to the Greka Energy January 4, 2006, item 4. This response indicates that the determination is based on an engineering design basis and system demands. The example in that response uses boilers to describe different

c onfigurations. However, the same approach applies to internal combustion engines.

4) Rule 202.D.5 and Rule 202.D.7:

The proposed revisions to the temporary equipment and stationary source permit exemptions appear to require SBCAPCD written approval of the request submitted by the operator to use equipment covered by the exemption request. In many cases these exemption requests are made for emergency situations. Therefore, the revisions should include a specific deadline in which the SBCAPCD has to

res pond with an approval or denial of the request. Also, any fees for the review of the request should be billed to the operator after the request is made, and should not have to accompany the submittal of the request to the SBCAPCD.

See the response to VAF

B, January 10, 2006, items b(1) and b(2). Regarding the fee for the exemption request, the fee needs to be submitted with the request. However, for sources with a deposit on file, the District can, when requested in writing, bill the applicant for the fe e by taking the fee from the deposit.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 12 Consistency of the SBCAPCD proposed rulemaking with EPA’s 1995 rulemaking

comments.

In 1995 the EPA identified reasons for modifying Rule 202 in association with Rule 333 changes to make these rules acceptable for inclusion into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). [. . .]

WSPA believes that the proposed revisions to Rule
202 and Rule 333 are consistent with EPA‟s

comments as follows:

 Revision of engine exemptions in Rule 202F.1.f. by lowering the exemption thre shold for spark ignition engines from 100 bhp to 50 bhp.

 Revision of the stationary source exemption to include a gatekeeper of 25 tons per year for engines at the stationary source greater than 20 bhp but less than 50 bhp.

WSPA concurs that these propose d revisions to Rule 202 and Rule 333 are consistent with the guidance from EPA. However, at the December 8, 2005 rulemaking workshop, the SBCAPCD agreed to consider adding gatekeeper options for the engine operator that were not limited to the 25

- ton thre shold. This could include an aggregate horsepower

- rating gatekeeper. WSPA encourages the SBCAPCD to consider these options in any redraft of this rule language. In addition, WSPA requests clarification on the proposed 25

- ton gatekeeper. The emission

t hreshold should be based on actual emissions.

The APCD has revised the Rule 202.F.1.f aggregate threshold to be 400 bhp.

As occurred with the previous Rule 202 revisions adopted by the SBCAPCD Board in March 2005, these proposed revisions would require o perators to permit engines that were previously exempt. That initial engine permit application will not be subject to New Source Review (NSR). However, if the engine fails and can not be repaired, then a replacement requires an application that is subjec t to NSR requirements (Offsets, BACT, modeling, etc.).

Therefore, WSPA is requesting that the SBCAPCD clarify the exemption requirements for identical replacement and equivalent routine replacement within this rulemaking (Reference Rule 202 D.9).

Inclu ding this request in the current rulemaking process is appropriate since the District has also proposed rule exemptions for wineries and powder coatings, which are not related to responding to EPA and CARB comments on Rule 202 and 333. WSPA appreciates the SBCAPCD‟s efforts in providing operators with a temporary replacement option in their permits, but that option only applies to repair of engines, not permanent replacement. As part of this rulemaking process, WSPA is requesting that the SBCAPCD respond to the “Historical Perspective” document (See Attachment1) which has been submitted to SBCAPD staff with requests for a response previously. WSPA believes that response to this request will both clarify Rule 202.D.9 requirements outlined in the SBCAPCD Rule 202 staff report dated April 22,1997, and will remove

much confusion on this issue since the SBCAPCD issued its policy on identical and equivalent routine replacement.

See the response to Greka Energy, January 4, 2006,

item 1.

Consistency of the SBCAPC D proposed rulemaking with CARB’s Reasonably Available Control technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) Guidelines, dated November 1, 2001.

The CARB RACT/BARCT Determination (November 1, 2001) states that: “This determinati on is a non

- regulatory guidance document . . . Nothing in our guidance precludes districts from adopting different or more stringent rules or from varying from the determination to consider site specific situations.”

In the following comments, statements made in the Background Paper are followed by the CARB RACT/BARCT Determination language. The page

number where the reference can be found in Appendix A of the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination is included (e.g. A

- 8). Any WSPA

comments are included below that r eference.

1.) Lowering the single

- engine exemption threshold from 100 to less than 50 bhp is consistent with . . . the

CARB RACT/BARCT Determination.

RACT/BARCT: The provisions of this determination are applicable to all stationary spark

- ignited internal combustion engines with a current rating of 50 bhp or greater (A

- 2).

WSPA Comment: Appears to be consistent.

2.) The CARB RACT/BARCT Determination indicates the provisions are applicable to all stationary spark

- ignited internal combustion enginesSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 13 with a current rating of 50 bhp or greater, or a maximum fuel consumption of 0.52 million Btu per hour or greater based on a brake specific fuel consumption rating of 10,400 Btu per bhp

- hour. Therefore, the concept of not applying the prohibitory rule provision s to an engine based upon a maximum heat input rate at a certain brake specific fuel consumption rating, which equates to an output of less than 50 bhp, is consistent with the ARB

RACT/BARCT Determination.

RACT/BARCT: The provisions of this determination are applicable to all stationary spark

- ignited internal combustion engines with a current rating of 50 bhp or greater, or a maximum fuel consumption of 0.52 million Btu per hour or greater based on a brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) rating of 10,400 Btu per bhp

- hour. For stationary spark

- ignited internal combustion engines with different BSFC ratings, the maximum fuel consumption should be adjusted accordingly. (A

- 2)

WSPA Comment: Appears to be consistent.

3) Rule 333.D.4: Install and maintain a c ontinuous oxides of nitrogen and oxygen monitoring system for engines with a bhp of 1,000 or greater, subject to a Section E emission limit, and permitted to operate in excess of 2,000 hours per year. This requirement

stems from the ARB RACT/BARCT Determin ation.

RACT/BARCT: For each stationary internal combustion engine with a rated brake horsepower of 1,000 or greater and which is permitted to operate more than 2,000 hours per calendar year, the owner or operator shall install, operate, and maintain in

c alibration a continuous NO

x and O2 monitoring system (A

- 10). The continuous monitoring system may be a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), parametric emissions monitoring system (PEMS), or an alternative approved by the Air

Pollution Control Off

icer. (A

- 11)

WSPA Comment: The proposed revisions to Rule

333 are consistent with the CARB RACT/BARCT guidelines concerning the requirement for CEMS for engines exceeding 1,000 bhp. However, the proposed revisions to Rule 333 do not refer to other option s included in these guidelines, but rather suggests only that CEMS is required. WSPA requests that the SBCAPCD add this language to the proposed rule. In addition, WSPA requests that justification criteria be added to the rulemaking staff report for the requirement of installing a CEMS. For example, if an engine has demonstrated compliance with emission limits through source testing, quarterly, and now proposed monthly, NO

x box testing, and periodic SBCAPCD inspections, WSPA believes that

installation of a CEMS for that engine is unnecessary. WSPA believes that the expense of the installation and maintenance of a CEMS, additional development of CEMS prototcols [SIC] and plans, quarterly or annual Relative Accuracy Testing Audits (RATA) and other requirem ents required by 40 CFR Part 60, and fees associated with the CEMS is an unnecessary burden to be placed on industry. Additionally, if the engines have historically been shown to be complying with emission requirements, then the inclusion of CEMS only add s cost and complexity without adding any benefit to air quality.

The APCD has added text to the proposed Rule 333.D.4 provision that makes it applicable to new engines only. Since we are now proposing that the 333.D.4 provisions apply to “new” engines only, the APCD believes the requirement to use a CEMS is the most effective compliance tool.

4) Rule 333 E, Requirements

- Emission Limits:

a) The SBCAPCD used the RACT emission limits

from the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination for the proposed emission limits for spark ignition engines.

RACT/BARCT: Refer to Table A

- 1 in the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination. (A

- 6) Note: As stated in the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination,
“these RACT and BARCT limits should be used as guidance. Districts have the primary responsibility for regulating stationary sources and have the flexibility to adopt IC engine rules that differ from this guidance, as long as these differences do not conflict with other applicable statutes, codes and regulations.”

WSPA Comment: Limits are consistent, however

refer to note above.

b) Rule 333.E.4, Emission Limits for Compression Ignition Engines: The SBCAPCD

has included new ROC and CO emission limits.

RACT/BARCT: WSPA can not find any reference in the RACT/BARCT Determination that specifies

these new emission limits. Therefore, WSPA requests that the SBCAPCD provide justification for this new requirement from the RACT/BARCT guidelines, or other mandate.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 14 The ARB RACT/BARCT Determination referenced in the background report is for spark ignition engines only. ARB has not written a RACT/BARCT determination for compression ignition engines. Lacking such an ARB determination, we are using the compression ignition engine NOx and ROC limits from other air districts (e.g., the NOx and ROC limits from the Sac ramento Metropolitan AQMD, Rule 412, and CO limit from the Ventura County APCD Rule 74.9).

5) Rule 333.F.3: Consistent with the CARB RACT/BARCT Determination, staff recommends that the engine inspection frequency be increased from quarterly to monthly.

RACT/BARCT: The inspection and monitoring plan shall include monthly emissions checks by a procedure specified by the ACPD officer. (A

- 10)

WSPA Comment: This proposed revision appears to

be consistent with the CARB RACT/BARCT guidelines. However, the gu idance document (Chapter IV

- K) identifies that quarterly testing may

also be sufficient. WSPA believes that the SBCAPCD needs to provide documentation of the frequency of observed failures of the existing quarterly monitoring procedure prior to implementin g any increased monitoring. Monthly testing is a four

- fold increase in monitoring with substantial costs. SBCAPCD has not provided any economical analysis for RACT/BARCT implementation. In addition, quarterly monitoring meets the guidance document suggesti ons for RACT sources (less than 5 tons/day and 250 tons/year). The SBCAPCD has not shown that any of the sources affected by a new requirement for monthly monitoring meet the definition for BARCT sources. Therefore, WSPA requests that the monitoring frequ ency not be revised from quarterly to monthly inspections.

See the response to Greka Energy, January 4, 2006,

item 7.

6) Exempting spark ignition emergency standby engines from the prohibitory rule is consistent with

the ARB RACT/BARCT Determination.

R ACT/BARCT: The provisions of this determination, except for Section V11.B (2) (nonresettable fuel/time meter) shall not apply to . . . (2) Emergency standby engines that, excluding periods of operation during unscheduled power outages, do not exceed 100 ho urs of operation annually as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter. (A

- 8) WSPA Comment: Appears to be consistent.

7) Rule 333.D: The SBCAPCD staff proposes that all engines subject to Rule 333 be equipped with fuel meters. This requ irement is consistent with the ARB

RACT/BARCT Determination.

RACT/BARCT: Any engine subject to this determination including those subject to Section IV.B. shall be required to install a nonresettable fuel meter and a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter. (A

- 8)

WSPA Comment: Appears to be consistent.

8) Rule 333 I, Source Testing.

a) The ARB RACT/BARCT Determination specifies a source testing frequency of at least once every 24 months.

RACT/BARCT: The owner or operator shall arrange for and as sure that an emissions source test is performed on each stationary internal combustion engine at least once every 24 months. (A

- 11)

WSPA Comment: Appears to be consistent. However, please note comment No. 5 above.

b) Rule 333.I.7.c: The proposed revisio ns to Rule 333 included in this section require that: “At a minimum, three 30 minute test runs shall be performed. Any 15

- minute clock average exceeding a Section E limit during any test run constitues [SIC] an emission violation.

RACT/BARCT: WSPA can not find any

reference in the RACT/BARCT Determination that specifies this requirement. Therefore, WSPA requests that the SBCAPCD provide justification for this requirement from the RACT/BARCT guidelines or the approved test methods included

in the RACT/B ARCT guidelines. Additionally, the SBCAPCD needs to provide historical data indicating the frequency of failed source tests;

without such data it is difficult to understand the basis for more stringent test requirements. WSPA believes that an engine compl ying with the permitted emission limit over a 30

- minute period is sufficient to determine compliance during a source test. Therefore, WSPA requests that the

SBCAPCD delete the second sentence of Rule

333.I.7.c.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 15 See response to the VAFB January 10, 2006 letter, item c(4).

Vandenberg Air Force Base,

February 28, 2006

[. . .] requests the APCD consider the following inclusion in Rule 102, Definition.

"Responsible Official" refers to an individual employed by the company or public agency with

the auth ority to certify that equipment under his/her jurisdiction complies with applicable requirements. A company or public agency may have more than one Responsible Official. A contracted designee cannot certify compliance in lieu of the Responsible Official.

VAFB believes that this verbiage provides needed

clarification for non

- Part 70 sources.

To address the concern, application form (APCD

Form

- 01) was revised to take out the term “Responsible Official.”

Plains Exploration and Production Company

June 8, 2006

We have identified a new exemption that we request

be considered for Rule 202.

We ocasionally [SIC], but infrequently, need to use divers to perform maintenance on underwater sections of the offshore platforms and pipelines. These activities requi re divers to be in the water for extended periods of time. To prevent hypothermia, the divers use special suits that are heated with water.

In the past, we go through the temporary exemption process to use special portable diesel fired water

heaters for t his purpose. The emissions are small,

almost trivial.

We are requesting that the District add a new exemption 202.L.16:

16. Notwithstanding G.2 of this Rule, portable water heaters used exclusively for underwater diving activities with a maximum heat inp ut rating less than 1 million Btu/hr fired exclusively on

diesel fuel.

This will eliminate tremendous project delays and duplicative work for individual exemptions. Please let me know if you need more information on this issue.

We concur with the concept for an exemption on this type of equipment.

Western States Petroleum Association,

August 22, 2006

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)

is a non

- profit trade association representing a full spectrum of companies which explore for, produce,

r efine, transport, and market petroleum products in

the six western states. WSPA staff and its Coastal Air Strategy Group (CASG) members appreciated meeting with the District staff in March 2006 concerning the proposed revisions to Rules 102, 202,

and 333. Based the discussions at that meeting, our

follow

- up telephone conferences with District staff,

and WSPA

- member internal discussions, we have updated our comments on this proposed rulemaking.

These comments are attached. We are also requesting that staf

f respond to our comments on this rulemaking outlined in our letter to the District on January 18, 2006.

1) Rule 202.F.6: Deletion of the exemption for offshore drilling activities

Terry Dressler explained to our WSPA CASG members that this exemption re quired elimination so that compliance with the diesel engine ATCM could be achieved. If this exemption is eliminated, WSPA has the following questions and comments concerning the impacts to offshore facilities operated by our

members:

 Currently, Rule 202 allows a gatekeeper of 25 tons per year for drilling engine emissions. If this exemption is removed, it is WSPA‟s understanding that drilling engines would be permitted with an emission limit of 25 tons per year, and that this addition to the stationary source emissions will not be subject to New Source Review (NSR). WSPA requests that the District provide details on how such a transition would occur. For example, would the application for permit have to identify each engine to be used at the stationary source?

A “gatekeeper” is not a vested blanket emissions limitation that is broadly maintained once an exemption is removed. The removal of the drilling exemption applies to specific drilling equipment. For those platforms with existing permanent drill ing equipment in place, the removal of the exemption will require the submittal of a PTO application within 90Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 16 days of EPA’s promulgation of the Rule 202 revision into the OCS Air Regulation. The PTO permits would establish emission limits for the equipme nt based on its potential to emit.

Equipment that is transient would either need to be registered in the State PERP program or be permitted. As noted in our other responses to comments, existing portable drilling engines may be registered as in

- use eng ines with the ARB. This registration process will have to occur within the same 90 day period as noted above. Registered equipment on the OCS is required to follow the requirements of the PERP program as if the equipment were located in State Territorial Waters.

WSPA’s concern is still valid in the larger context. The exemption applied to all drilling equipment and was based on actual emissions. The removal of the exemption may result in the use of both permitted and unpermitted (PERP’d) drilling equipm ent whose PTE may exceed the prior exemption threshold. A solution to WSPA’s concern is to establish a separate 25 tpy limitation based on actual emissions for all existing drilling equipment (previously permit exempt

and in

- use PERP).

Further, t here are instances where the source has complied with the Rule 202.F.6 exemption through enforceable limitations on the use of emission controls. In this case, these limitations are used for establishing the PTE.

 What will the procedure be for drilling e ngines that cannot be permitted by the SBCAPCD or registered in the CARB program? Engines from

outside California and the United States are periodically used on a transient basis for well workover activities. It cannot be guaranteed that only a select set of engines would be used on this basis since the engines potentially come from multiple work sites around the world. Would an exemption be allowed for these out

- of

- state engines?

In WSPA’s comments, they state:

“WSPA has contacted several of the drilli ng support contractors that provide engines for offshore drilling operations. They have concurred that if current engines can be grandfathered into the PERP program without control requirements until 2010, or grandfathered into a “various locations permit” (exempt from NSR), then that would cover most their inventory of support engines.”

This statement provides support that engines exist within California to meet the drilling needs of the OCS operators. However, to provide a mechanism to exempt the use of “specialty equipment,” the APCD added a new permit exemption (Rule 202.F.5).

 It is our understanding from our participation in the recent PERP workshops, that if an engine permit exemption is removed, then those unpermitted engines would be allowed to be grandfathered into the PERP program. Additional emission control requirements will also not be required until 2010. WSPA requests confirmation of this PERP provision.

That is correct and has been confirmed with the ARB.

 District staff have informed WSPA that drilling engine vendors could apply for permits with the
SBCAPCD with a “various location” format. Thus, permitted vendor engines could be brought on a platform to perform drilling operations. Please confirm that this provision, similar to the permitting policies for the VCAPCD OCS platforms, would be available for offshore drilling operations in Santa Barbara County.

SBCAPCD does issue various locations permits. However, such permits have provisions requiring prior notification and approval. The APCD evaluates each usage to determine whether the equipment, when brought onsite, would trigger NSR requirements for that stationary source. If this is the case, the use of the various locations permit would not be granted approval for use on that s tationary

source. This review is done on a case

- by

- case basis. Typical equipment permitted by the APCD for

various locations use includes contaminated soil cleanup units, degassing units and mobile re

- fueling

units.

 In certain instances, a drill rig en gine or drilling support engine may fail during a drilling operation. This could constitute an emergency situation in the midst of a drilling operation, with the need for a replacement immediately. If an available replacement engine is not permitted or d oes not have a PERP certification, what provisions could be made to use this engine to continue the drilling operation? WSPA would request an exemption from permit for such emergency drilling operationsSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 17 since it is WSPA‟s understanding that a variance

cou ld not be obtained for not having a valid permit for a replacement

- drilling engine.

For permitted engines, the provisions of the temporary engine replacement condition would apply. Non

-

permitted engines will be eligible for the PERP emergency use provis ions. See Title 13, California Code of Regulation, Section 2455(c) for details on these provisions. The new “specialty equipment” provision in Rule 202.F.5 may be available depending on the circumstances.

2) Rule 202 F.3: Deletion of the exemption for

construction activities

The elimination of the construction exemption from the rule is a significant matter for WSPA as well as other entities in the county. Industry, especially the offshore oil and gas industry, relies on this exemption for large short

- term construction projects. Examples of large short

- term construction projects are as

follows:

 Installation of electric cables from onshore to offshore platforms utilizing cable lay vessels.

 Use of semi

- submersible drill rigs or floating vessels for exp loratory drilling.

 Derrick barges with cranes for heavy lifting of platform extensions or lifting other equipment onto a platform.

 Pipeline construction/repair projects (e.g. barge

mounted pipeline laying equipment).

 Installation of a new platform (Jackets and topsides).

PERP engines are not always available for these projects. Since many of the examples listed above include marine vessels, WSPA believes that this current rulemaking would be an excellent opportunity for the SBCAPCD to clarify, and include in rule language or the staff report, its permitting requirements for propulsion and auxiliary engines on support marine vessels. Please refer to comment No. 3 below concerning our requests for vessel engine permit exemptions.

To address the concerns th at arise from the elimination of the construction exemption, the APCD is proposing modifications to or additions of:

 Rule 201.D (Requirement

- ATC),

 Rule 202.D.16 (Offsets Required When Projected Actuals Exceed 25 TPY Per a 12 Month Period)  Rule 202.F.5 (Specialty Equipment Exemption),

 Rule 202.F.7 (Exemptions for Pile Drivers, Cable and Pipe

- Laying Vessels/Barges), and

 Rule 202.F.8 (Exemptions from NSR for Marine Vessel Engines Associated with Construction, Maintenance, Repair and/or Demolition)

WSPA also requests clarification of the impact of the deletion of the construction exemption to all construction activities within the county. If this construction exemption is removed, then it would be WSPA‟s understanding that any construction activity

with in the county, utilizing stationary internal combustion engines, would require a permit or would require that the engines used in that construction project have a PERP. This would include the use of engines in the construction of shopping centers, housing developments, and major building projects.

That is correct, non

- road engines rated 50 bhp or greater used in any construction project in the County would either require a PERP or a permit. Motor vehicles are not subject to APCD permit.

The SBCAPCD mus t remember that the whole body of their rules must be considered when making changes to any one part. The lack of any available offsets in the county and the lack of reasonable rules to allow temporary use of offsets preclude the ability of companies to c onduct normal business projects. The evolution of diesel engine emission controls, and the use of spot charter and permitted marine vessels has allowed many of these projects to proceed without exceeding the 10

- ton emission offset threshold. However, in certain instances the project emissions may exceed the 10

- ton emission offset threshold. Therefore, WSPA suggests that a revision of the offset rules (e.g. temporary leasing of offsets) be completed before the construction exemption is

amended. WSPA also requests that the District provide guidance on how such construction projects may occur if this exemption is removed. For example, would the current “Repair and Maintenance” exemption in Rule 202.D.8 be able to

be utilized for some of these construction/r epair projects?

The APCD is believes the emission offset requirements will be satisfactorily addressed with the proposed amended Rule 202, Sections F.5, F.7, and

F.8.

3) Specialized Engine ExemptionsSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 18 SBCAPCD staff has requested WSPA to propose a

list o f specialized drilling or other platform operation engines that would be covered by a Rule 202 exemption. The reasons for such exemption requests

are as follows:

a) It would be very difficult or impossible to permit or register these engines into the PERP. b) Engine emissions would be very minimal. c) Engine use requirements from regulatory agencies.

Requests for specific engine exemptions would include the following:

 PXP has submitted the following exemption request to the SBCAPCD: Portable water heaters

used exclusively for underwater diving activities with a maximum heat input rating less than 1 million Btu/hr, fired exclusively on diesel fuel.

 Marine support vessels and engines installed on support vessels that are used throughout the country and the world and are brought into District

waters for short

- term construction or repair and maintenance projects. These engines would not be readily available in Santa Barbara County or California, and must be imported. Of particular concern are propulsion engines on diving support vessels, engines installed on diving support vessels (air compressors, etc), cable lay vessel engines, barge vessel engines, and engines mounted on barges.

 Marine support vessel trip emissions specifically requested by regulatory agencies to perform observations and monitoring of construction, deconstruction, and repair projects. Examples of agency requests have included Santa Barbara County Planning Division staff requested trips and marine mammal agency oversight/monitoring. The applican t should be exempt from such vessel trip emissions if they are requested by the agency and are not included in permitted vessel emissions required for the project operations.

 WSPA has contacted several of the drilling support contractors that provide engi nes for offshore drilling operations. They have concurred that if current engines can be grandfathered into the PERP program without control requirements until 2010, or grandfathered into a “various locations permit” (exempt from NSR), then that would cove r most their inventory of support engines. They could not provide WSPA with a list of any drilling support engines that could not fit into these categories at this time. However, as this rulemaking progresses, WSPA needs the ability to provide the SBCAPC D with a list of engine exemption requests in the future which can not be accommodated by these registration/permitting procedures.

The request for an exemption for portable water heaters used for underwater diving activities has been addressed by the ad dition of a new exemption (Rule 202.L.16). To address the use of emergency “specialty equipment,” the APCD has added a new provision (Rule 202.F.5).

Regarding marine support vessel trip emissions, the question that needs to be addressed is, “are the

mari ne vessels associated with the stationary source?” If the answer is “yes,” then the emissions from these support vessels must be included in the PTE for the stationary source as required by Rule 202.F.1.b and the OCS Air Regulation. OCS Platform permits al ready include emission line items for such required vessel use (i.e., Clean Seas vessels).

The APCD believes the concerns on marine vessel engine emissions relative to short

- term construction, maintenance, repair and/or demolition activities

associated wi th a stationary source have been addressed by the new/modified provisions in the proposed amended Rule 202.

4) Identical and Equivalent Replacement

At this time, WSPA is withdrawing its request for the District to consider clarification of the exemption requirements for identical replacement and equivalent routine replacement within this current Rule 202 rulemaking (Reference Rule 202 D.9). Should it be necessary, WSPA will discuss the District‟s current policies concerning identical replacement and equi valent routine replacement in the future.

Comment noted.

Consistency of the SBCAPCD proposed rulemaking with CARB’s Reasonably Available Control technology (RACT) and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) Guidelines, dated November 1, 2001.

5.) Rule 333 I, Source Testing.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 19 Rule 333.I.7.c: The proposed revisions to Rule 333 included in this section require that: “At a minimum, three 30 minute test runs shall be performed. Any 15

- minute clock average exceeding a Section E limit during any t est run constitues [SIC] an emission
violation”. In our discussions with District staff, WSPA was informed that the above source testing requirement was consistent with VCAPCD, South Coast AQMD, and SJVAPCD source testing requirements, as well as

the RACT guidelines. WSPA has reviewed the source testing provisions in these District rules, and

has interviewed their staff and several CARB

certified source testing contracting firms. The table below summarizes these investigations.

Jurisdiction Rule Requ ired Averaging Period (min) Minimum Test Run Required (min)

SBCAPCD Proposed Rule 333.1.7.c 15 30

SJVAPCD Rule 4301.6.3.2 30 30

VCAPCD Rule 74.9.B.4 15 15

SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 (d)(1)(B) &(C) 15 15

Therefore, WSPA requests that this source testing

re vision be eliminated. The proposed language would only be acceptable to WSPA if the District limits source test runs and the averaging period to 15

minutes.

See response to the VAFB January 10, 2006 letter, item c(4).

WSPA is requesting that source test ing not be required for EPA/CARB

- certified “tiered” engines for the hours for which the engine is certified. For example, if the new engine is certified by CARB/EPA for 8,000 hours, then source testing should not be required until that 8,000

- hour certifi cation period expires.

Although EPA/CARB certification standards apply to “tiered” engines, we have found that some engine manufacturers do not always guarantee these values. Further, unless required as BACT the APCD accepts Rule 333 limits as the enforc eable permit limit for these tiered engines. However, to provide relief from some of the Rule 333 requirements, the APCD is proposing special treatment for tiered engines that do not exceed 560 ppmv NOx at 15% oxygen (as demonstrated by routine monitoring with a portable analyze). These provisions are included as Rule

333.B.3 and Rule 333.I.8.

Consideration of Previously Submitted WSPA

Comments Not withstanding [SIC] the clarifications listed above, WSPA requests that the District consider our

comments, contained in our January 18, 2006 letter, when you develop further revisions to Rule 102, 202,

and 333.

These have been addressed.

Western States Petroleum Association,

May 18, 2007

Per an e

- mail from Kevin Wright to Tom Murphy dated May 18, 2007:

[ . . .]

On behalf of Bob Poole and the WSPA CASG members, please find attached our list of issues associated with the proposed elimination of the construction exemption.

[. . .]

Construction Exemption

WSPA has not reached consensus with the

SBCAPCD on the removal of the construction exemption as follows:

1. Potential Emission Offset Requirements: The SBCAPCD staff position is that engines used for construction activities require permits or be registered under the PERP program. Therefore,Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 20 all the eng ines used in a construction project which require permits are subject to NSR and could potentially require emission offsets. This position is problematic in that construction projects are shot

- term [SIC], and the SBCAPCD emission offset requirements are f or long

- term stationary source projects, and must be in place for the life of the project. Currently, there is no SBCAPCD program or rule for leasing offsets.

2. Offshore Construction Projects: The SBCAPCD staff position is that construction project en gines associated with an offshore stationary source, including marine vessel propulsion engine emissions, must be included in the source‟s potential to emit and are subject to NSR provisions per Rule 202.F.1.b and the OCS Air Regulations.

3. Cable Lay/De rrick Barge Activities : The SBCAPCD staff position is that construction activities associated with cable lay or derrick barges, not erected or attached to the sea floor, and with an activity PTE less than 25 tons/year, do not require a permit under the pr ovisions of Rule 201.D.1 [SIC]. However, in staff‟s view, the proposed Rule 202.D.16 would apply to construction projects associated with a stationary source. In addition, marine propulsion engine emissions must be included in the source‟s potential to e mit and are subject to NSR provisions per Rule 202.F.1.b, and the OCS regulations.

Analysis:

WSPA has expressed the following positions on these construction exemption issues:

 The SBCAPCD must provide citations for marine propulsion engines being inclu ded in the stationary source‟s [Offshore platform(s)] PTE beyond those required for crew and supply boats servicing the platforms.

Reference citations include Rule 102, specifically, the definition of “stationary source”, which includes all pollutant em itting activities located in the OCS. Rule 201.A. applies to the operation or use of any equipment which may cause the issuance of air contaminants. Rule 202.F.1.b. provides permit exemption for marine vessel propulsion engines other

than those associate d with a stationary source. For stationary sources ALL marine vessel propulsion engines are included. Finally, the OCS Air Regulations (40 CFR Part 55) requires the inclusion of ALL marine propulsion engines.

 WSPA believes that SBCAPCD staff‟s interpret ation stated above is different than the Rule 202.D.16 language. The proposed Rule 202.D.16 states that emissions from equipment used to construct a stationary source must be

included in the 25

- ton gatekeeper calculation. This proposed rule includes noth ing about a construction project being “associated with” a stationary source.

This is not the correct interpretation. The term “associated with” doesn’t apply in this case. The rule says the “combined emissions from all construction equipment used to construct (emphasis added) a stationary source which requires an Authority to Construct” must provide offsets if the projected actual emissions exceed 25 tpy. The District is currently exploring the option for inclusion of a new permit exemption for short

- term construction projects.

 WSPA has confirmed that no other air district in the state requires permits for construction activities (An exception would be stationary concrete batch plants for the road construction projects). These air districts handle

c onstruction projects under the NEPA and CEQA process. WSPA believes that the

SBCAPCD rules should be consistent with

those of other air districts and handle construction projects through the NEPA/CEQA process and not the permit process.

The APCD propos es to remove the construction exemption. This exemption applied to “equipment” used to construct a stationary source. We do not intend to require permits for “construction activities” and/or “construction projects”. Rather, sources will be required to u se construction equipment which is either permitted with the District or holds a PERP registration through the state.

 Permitting requirements for deconstruction and abandonment activities must be clarified during this rulemaking.

Historically, equipment used for deconstruction or abandonment activities was required to be either permitted with the District or hold a PERP registration with the state. There is no change proposed in this regard. The District is working on a

revision to Rule 202 to add an ex emption (F.8) forSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 21 marine vessels which would allow for demolition and

abandonment short

- term projects to be performed without permit, provided the exemption criteria are satisfied.

 An offset leasing rule needs to be added to the Rule 800 provisions.

Th e District does not intend to open Regulation VIII to incorporate an offset leasing provision. However, the District is proposing to make changes to Rule 202 (F.7 and F.8) which should mitigate the need for offsets for such short

- term projects.

Semi

- subm ersible Drill Rigs, Drill Ships, and

Jack

- up Rigs

The SBCAPCD staff position is that semi

submersible drill rigs, drill ships, and jack

- up rigs are

all considered installed and/or erected and attached to the sea floor, and a permit is required for these r igs. All equipment with the potential to emit air contaminants on board the rig would be permitted, unless specifically exempted in Rule 202. Dedicated propulsion engines would not be permitted, but their emissions would be permitted, and would be includ ed in the PTE. Dual use propulsion engines would be permitted for the time the engine is used for operational activities. Any associated support marine

vessel emissions would be included in the source‟s

PTE.

The APCD concurs that the discussion above accurately represents our position.

Analysis:

The oil and gas industry has always assumed that it could utilize the existing construction exemption for these drilling exploration activities. The SBCAPCD has taken the position that the proposed Rule

202 .D.16 would not apply to these activities, and they would be stationary sources and subject to the SBCAPCD‟s permitting and NSR requirements. The SBCAPCD must provide citations for including these activities in their permitting program.

The following addresses the concerns on semi

submersible drill rigs, drill ships, and jack

- up rigs.

• Semi

- submersible drill rigs (drill rigs) are considered “erected” and subject to the requirement to obtain a permit per District Rule

201.A. • Drill rigs are also governed under the authority of Chapter 26 of the California Health and Safety Code, specifically sections 39002 and 42300.

• Federal regulations are consistent with the above interpretation that a drill rig is built or erected prior to operation and ther efore would require a permit. Pursuant to Section 328 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted 40 CFR Part 55 in 1992 to regulate sources of air pollution on the Outer Continental Shelf. This would include, for example, drill ships on the OCS. (57 F.R. 40792, September 4, 1992).

• William M. Dillon, Deputy Counsel, provided the District with a written opinion regarding “Rule 201 and semisubmersible drill rigs” dated March 23, 2007. This opinion finds that semi submersible drill rigs would require a permit from the District if the exemption for drill in Rule 202 F (6) was repealed.

• The “oil and gas industry” is incorrect in their assumption regarding the use of the “construction exemption” for exploratory dri lling activities. When the District adopted the Regulation II and Regulation VIII requirements in 1997 we made it clear in the FAQ’s that drilling a well was not considered construction. In fact, Rule 202.F.6 provides an exemption for “drilling equipment

used in state waters or in the Outer Continental Shelf provided the emissions from such equipment is less than 25 tons per stationary source of any affected pollutant during any consecutive 12 month period.”

• Rule 202.D.16 does not apply to exploratory drilling activities because it’s not construction. The District is proposing to eliminate the drill rig exemption currently included in Rule 202.F.6. District rules require that within 90

- days of the exemption removal that such rigs are either permitted with the District or hold a PERP registration through the state. In addition, the District will be proposing an addition to Rule 202 for the use of “specialty equipment” which is ineligible for registration in the state PERP.

• Activities described in WSPA’s “analysis” are for new projects. The proposed rule changes will require that new projects comply with District rules and regulations. The impact on existing sources with drill rigs is that they will need to get

a PTO within 90

- days following the r ule change due to a loss of exemption. Alternatively, existing drill rigs will also be able to obtain a PERPSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 22 registration as an “in use” engine. Notwithstanding the above explanation, new exploratory drilling operations will require a permit.

Californi a Air Resources Board February 13, 2008

Rule 101 Definitions

We have on [SIC] comment on this rule

Rule 201 Permits Required

We have no comment on this rule

Rule 202 Exemptions to Rule 201

We have no comment on this rule.

Rule 333 Contr ol of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

1. Section B.2 : This section exempts engines that operate less than 200 hours per calendar year from Rule 333 NOx, CO, and ROC emission limits. Many compression ignition engines subject to District Rule 333 are also subject to Stationary Diesel Engine Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) emission limits for these air pollutants (Section 93115.7(b)). However, in contrast to Rule 333, Section B.2., the ATCM provides, upon owner/operator re quest, a more limited general exemption for prime engines that operate no more than 20 (as opposed to 200) hours per year (Section 93115.3(j)). We recommend that section B.2.'s Note 6 clarify that only prime engines operating 20 hours or less per year are eligible for exemption from ATCM NOx, CO, HC, and NMHC+NOx emission limits.

We added a Note 6A, which states in general terms

that a low

- use prime engine may be exempt from Rule 333, but not the ATCM.

2. Section E.4 : The NOx limit for compression

i gnition engines (i.e., 700 ppmv or ~ 9 g/bhp

- hr) is not as stringent as the Stationary Diesel Engine ATCM's requirement that in

- use engines not exceed the more stringent of: 1) Off

- Road CI Engine Certification Standard for an engine of the same horsepower and model year, or 2) Tier 1 standards (i.e., 6.9 g/bhp

- hr) (Sections 93115.7(b) and 93115.8(b)). Since many compression ignition engines subject to District Rule 333 are also subject to the ATCM, we recommend that an

additional note be added to inform s takeholders that ATCM NOx emission limits supercede the less stringent NOx emission limit of Rule 333.

We modified Note 43 in the annotated version of proposed amended Rule 333 to mention that the ATCM requirements are more restrictive and supersede the l ess

- stringent limits in Rule 333

Vandenberg Air Force Base, March 10, 2008

1. Rule 102 comments:

a. Fuel: VAFB understands that the 20% biodiesel blend (B

- 20) is considered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as diesel fuel that does
not requ ire APCD pre

- approval. Other biodiesel blends greater then B

- 20 require APCD approval prior to use.

That is correct.

b. 202.D.16: The 25 ton per year construction cap. The existing exemption states:

Notwithstanding any exemption in these rules

and regulations, if the combined emissions from all construction equipment used to construct a stationary source which requires an Authority to Construct (emphasis added) have a projected actual in excess of 25 tons of any pollutant, except carbon monoxide, in a 12 month period, the owner of the stationary source shall provide offsets as required under the provisions of Rule 804 and shall demonstrate that no ambient air quality

standard would be violated.

(1) VAFB understands that the specific

individual const ruction project within a stationary source is applied to the 25 ton total. The following examples are provided to clarify the VAFB understanding:

(a) For example, VAFB performs critical repairs on the 13 th Street Bridge caused by the Santa

Ynez River. T he repair/upgrade is not to support a new mission at VAFB. The construction project is within the VAFB stationary source and does not require an ATC. The project is not subject to the 25 ton per year construction cap.

(b) For example, VAFB performs a

st ructural upgrade on the 13 th Street Bridge to support an existing mission at VAFB. The construction project is within the VAFB stationary source and supports existing equipment operations that do notSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 23 require an ATC. The project is not subject to the

const ruction cap and VAFB is not required to maintain records demonstrating the projected actual emissions do not exceed 25 ton per year cap.

(c) For example, VAFB performs a structural upgrade on the 13 th Street Bridge to support

a new mission at VAFB. The co nstruction project is within the VAFB stationary source and supports equipment operation modifications that require an ATC. The project is subject to the construction cap and VAFB must maintain records demonstrating the projected actual emissions do not e xceed 25 ton per year construction cap.

(d) For example, VAFB constructs a water line project on the north base and constructs a building on the south base. Both construction projects are within the VAFB stationary source and neither requires an ATC. B oth projects are not subject to the 25 ton per year construction cap.

(e) For example, VAFB constructs a water line project on the north base and constructs a building on the south base. Both construction projects are within the VAFB stationary source. Th e water line project does not require an ATC. Construction of the building requires an ATC to install an emergency

back

- up generator. The water line project is not subject to the 25 ton per year cap. The building construction is subject to the constructi on cap and VAFB must maintain records demonstrating the projected actual emissions do not exceed 25 tons per

year.

(f) For example, VAFB constructs a water line project on the north base and constructs a building on the south base. Both construction proje cts are within the VAFB stationary source. The water line project requires an ATC because water is tied into a proposed boiler that requires an ATC. Construction of the building requires an ATC to install an emergency back

- up generator. The water line proj ect is subject to this 25 ton construction cap. The building construction is subject to the construction cap and VAFB must maintain records demonstrating the projected actual emissions do not exceed 25 tons per year. However, each project is treated separa tely and has separate 25 ton construction caps.

The APCD concurs with the examples given in (a) through (f) above.

c. 202. F.1.b: The United States government owned marine vessels. The existing exemption states: Engines used to propel marine vessels, e xcept vessels associated with a stationary source which shall be regulated as specified under the provisions of Regulation VIII

.

(1) VAFB understands that Department of Defense marine vessels used as tactical support and training of troops are not associ ated with the primary function of the VAFB stationary source and are already exempted pursuant to APCD rules.

The APCD concurs that this understanding is

correct.
d. 202.F.1.e: Compression ignition engines with a rated brake horsepower of less than 50:

(1) The APCD noted that this exemption was changed in order to be consistent with the California ATCM for Diesel PM from Portable Engines which applies to engines having a rated brake horsepower of 50 and greater (= 50) but the California ATCM for

Diesel PM from Stationary Engines applies to engine greater than 50 bhp (> 50). The proposed modification will result in requiring permits for stationary engines rated at 50 bhp, which is inconsistent with the ATCM for stationary engines.

For the purposes of the permitting program, we chose to standardize the permitting threshold at 50 bhp, which is consistent with the state’s portable engine ATCM applicability threshold.

e. 202.F.1.f: Spark ignition piston

- type internal combustion engines: VAFB understand s that the APCD reduced the engine exemption from 100 bhp to 50 bhp in order to address EPA‟s concern. However, VAFB does not understand why the APCD reduced total threshold from 500 bhp to 250 bhp. VAFB is

concerned because the cumulative total is close to the 250 bhp threshold. Once exceed, VAFB will be required to obtain permits and every time a <50 bhp engine arrives at VAFB, a new source review will be required. Because VAFB exceeds NSR thresholds, VAFB will be required to secure offsets for these

e ngines and potentially apply BACT, perform health risk assessments and air quality impact analysis. VAFB requests the APCD reconsider the lower threshold and return the threshold to 500 bhp.

The APCD has revised the Rule 202.F.1.f aggregate

threshold to be 400 brake horsepower based on the actual mix of the engine horsepower ratings in our inventory.

f. Rule 316 exemption for captured fleets with ORVR. VAFB requested the APCD consider a Rule 202 exemption from the requirements to install enhanced vapor recovery Phase II on gas dispensingSanta Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 24 facilities fueling captured fleets with on board vapor recovery (ORVR) systems. Please refer to Attachment 2. Attachment 2 provides CARB guidance to local California Districts encouraging them to revise vapor recovery rules requiring fleets.

This request requires a revision to Rule 316, Storage and Transfer of Gasoline. It cannot be accomplished through a revision of Rule 202. We have received the request to revise the Rule 316 consistent with the ARB guidance and w e are looking into it.Santa Barbara County APCD , Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Re sponses 25 1

- 1 1

- 1 (cont.)

1

- 2 California Air Resources Board

June 3, 2008

Rule 101 Definitions

We have no comments on this rule.

Rule 201 Permits Required

We have no comments on this rule.

Rule 202 Exemptions to Rule 201

We have no comments on th is rule.

Rule 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines

1. Section B.2: The staff of the Air Resources Board (ARB) needs to clarify comment number 1 in our letter to the District dated February 13, 2008. To

reiterate S ection B.2 of Rule 333 provides a general exemption from all requirements of Rule 333 for any engine that has a total aggregated operational period less than 200 hours per calendar year. We characterized this provision as less stringent than a similar pro vision contained in Section 93115.3 (j) of ARB‟s Air Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Internal Compression Engines (ATCM). As stated in our comment, many compression ignition engines subject to District Rule 333 are also subject to the ATCM.

Our conc ern was that the owners and operators of these engines must clearly understand that only prime engines operating no more than 20 hours are eligible for an exemption from the ATCM NOx, CO, HC, and NMHC+NOx emission limits.

Several important conditions of Section 93115.3 (j) were not clearly stated in our original comment to District staff. To clarify, the ATCM‟s low

- use prime engine exemption is only for in

- use stationary diesel

- fueled CI prime engines located beyond school boundaries and must be appro ved in writing by the district Air Pollution Control Officer. And, this section requires the engine to

be located more than 500 feet from a school at all

times. Aside from these clarifications , note 6A of section B.2 in the proposed amended Rule 333,

do es not recognize the low

- use exemption (section 93115.3 (j)) only applies to the emission standards in Section 93115.7 (b)(1). This exemption in the ATCM does not relieve the owner or operator from other requirements of the ATCM.

2. Section E.4: The NOx limit for compression ignition engines (i.e., 700 ppmv @ 15% O2 or ~9 g/bhp

- hr) is not as stringent as the ATCM‟s requirement for in

- use stationary CI engines. The ATCM requires these engines to meet the more stringent of: 1) the standards for off

- ro ad engines of the same model year and maximum rate power as specified in the Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engine Standards (title 13, CCR, Section 2423) of the engine installed to meet the applicable PM standard, or 2) the Tier 1 standards if no off

- road engine certification standards are established for

the in

- use stationary diesel

- fueled engine‟s model year. For your information the Tier 1, NOx emission standard is 6.9 g/bhp

- hr. This provision is contained in Sections 93115.7 (b) and 93115.8 (b) of the ATCM.

Since new and in

- use diesel

- fueled stationary prime compression ignition engines are subject to proposed amended Rule 333 and also subject to

the ATCM we recommend that the District make it very clear to the owners or operators of subject engines that the ATCM‟s more stringent NOx emission limits supersede the NOx limit in Rule 333. It is also important to emphasize to these stakeholders that these engines are concurrently subject to other requirements of the ATCM such as reporting, monitoring, co mpliance schedules, and compliance demonstrations. Lastly, keep in mind the approved test methods for demonstrating compliance for NOx, CO, and HC are contained

in section 9

Response to Comment Number 1

- 1: We believe that

Note 6A in the annotated vers ion of the proposed amended Rule 333 sufficiently states, in general terms, that a low

- use prime engine MAY be exempt from Rule 333, but not the ATCM.

Response to Comment Number 1

- 2: Similarly, we believe that Note 43 in the annotated version of

propos ed amended Rule 333 sufficiently indicates that the ATCM requirements are more restrictive and supersede the less

- stringent limits in Rule 333.ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN

Page 1 , 07/02/2008 

### SUMMARIZED EMISSIONS DATA FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN (CAP)

Category 2002 Baseline

NOx

Emissions in

TPD 2002 NOx

Emissions

With New

Control in

TPD 2002 NOx

Emissions

Reds With

New Control in

TPD 2010 NOx ERs

in TPD 2015 NOx

ERs in

TPD 2020 NOx

ERs in TPD 2002 Baseline

ROC

Emissions in

TPD 2002 ROC

Emissions

With New

Control in

TPD 2002 ROC

Emissions

Reds With

New

Control in

TPD 2010

ROC ERs

in TPD 2015

ROC ERs

in TPD 2 020

ROC ERs

in TPD

SI ICEs (CM 19) 1.5248 1.5050 0.0199 0.0172 0.0158 0.0146 0.2458 0.2513

- 0.0055

- 0.0048

- 0.0044

- 0.0041 CI ICEs (CM 20) 0.2272 0.2197 0.0074 0.0074 0.0074 0.0074 0.0155 0.0158

- 0.0002

- 0.0002

- 0.0002

- 0.0002

TOTAL 1.7520 1.7247 0.0273 0.0246 0.0233 0.0220 0.2613 0.2671

- 0.0057

- 0.0051

- 0.0047

- 0.0043ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN

Page 2 , 07/02/2008 Truncated 2002 Baseline Inventory Data 1

1 To make the data more manageable, staff omitted the baseline emissions from uncontrolled engines.ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN

Page 3 , 07/02/2008 Truncated 2002 Baseline Inventory Data (cont.)ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN

Page 4 , 07/02/2008 Spark Ignition Engine Emission Reduction Estimates from the Revised Rule 333 (Control Me asure 19)ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN

Page 5 , 07/02/2008 Spark Ignition Engine Emission Reduction Estimates from the Revised Rule 333 (Control Measure 19) (cont.)

Compression Ignition Engine Emission Reduction Estimates from the Revised Rule 333 (Control Measure 20)ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2007 CLEAN AIR PLAN

Page 6 , 07/02/2008 Compression Ignition En gine Emission Reduction Estimates from the Revised Rule 333 (Control Measure 20) (cont.)ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION RE DUCTIONS ESTIMATES FR OM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 7 , 07/02/2008 

### SUMMARIZED EMISSIONS DATA

Table 1. EMISSION REDUCTIONS 1

SOURCE AND EQUIPMENT

DESCRIPTION STATIONARY

SOURCE No. FACILITY

No. DEVICE

No. ESTIMATED EMISSION

REDUC TIONS (INCREASES)

NOx (tons/day) ROC

(tons/day)

County of Santa Barbara

- Foxen Canyon, two 78 bhp compression ignition engines 03706 03706 104269 &

106429 0.0019 (0.0000)

Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc., PF Hogan, 440 bhp compression ignition engi ne for well drilling 08001 08001 007107 0.0057 (0.0000)

Pacific Operators Offshore, Inc., PF Houchin, 440 bhp compression ignition engine for well drilling 08001 08002 007108 0.0040 (0.0000)

Purisima Hills LLC

- Barham Ranch, H.P. Boyne Lease, six

65 b hp uncontrolled spark ignition engines 01153 03777 005908, 005909, 005910, 005911, 005912, &

009015 0.0062 (0.0000)

TOTALS 0.0178 (0.0001)



### 2005 Baseline NOx: 1.88 tons per day 2005 Baseline ROG: 0.17 tons per day

1 

### Based on engines in the 2005 Emission Inventory.ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION RE DUCTIONS ESTIMATES FR OM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 8 , 07/02/2008 Truncated 2005 Baseline Inventory D ata 1

1 

### To make the data more manageable, staff omitted the baseline emissions from uncontrolled engines.ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION RE DUCTIONS ESTIMATES FR OM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 9 , 07/02/2008 Truncated 2005 Baseline Inventory Data (cont.)ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION RE DUCTIONS ESTIMATES FR OM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 10 , 07/02/2008 Spark Ignition Engine Emission Reduction Estimates from the Revised Rule 333 Rulemaking Effort (Control Measure 19)ATTACHMENT 9

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY APCD RULE 333, CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM RECIPROCATING INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

EMISSION RE DUCTIONS ESTIMATES FR OM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 11 , 07/02/2008 Compression Ignition Engine Emission Reduction Estimates from the Revised Rule 333 Rulemaking Effort (Control Measure 20)THIS PAGE INENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 210 CPI-Adjusted Fees Page 1 July 1, 2007 

# Rule 210 Fees Adjusted for the Change in the
California Consumer Price Index a

Rule 210 Fee Rate

Fee CPIAdjusted In Effect

Schedule Section Fee July 1, 2007

A. Facility/Equipment Description/Fee Schedule 1.a. Miscellaneous per equipment $56.9574 $56.95 1.b. Minimum fee if only miscellaneous equipment $354.8648 $354.00 b

2. Electric Motor Fee, per total rated horsepower $29.5309 $29.53

Minimum Fee $56.5879 $56.58

Maximum Fee $5,716.8401 $5,716.84 3. Fuel Burning Equipment Fee, per one million Btu/hour input (max. design fuel consumpt’n) $427.2595 $427.25

Minimum Fee $56.5879 $56.58

Maximum Fee $5,716.8401 $5,716.84 4. Electrical Energy Fee, per KVA rating in 10's $5.7426 $5.74

Minimum Fee $56.5879 $56.58

Maximum Fee $5,716.8401 $5,716.84

5. Incinerator Fee, per square feet of inside cross-section $71.1967 $71.19

Minimum Fee $56.5879 $56.58

Maximum Fee $2,857.7483 $2,857.74 6. Stationary Container Fee, per 1,000 gallons $3.2686 $3.26

Minimum Fee $56.5879 $56.58

Maximum Fee $2,857.7483 $2,857.74 7. Dry Cleaning Equipment Fee, per each item of equipment $56.9574 $56.95 8. Motor Vehicle Gasoline Fueling Facilities Fee per nozzle $32.7549 $32.75

Minimum Fee $227.6955 $227.69 Facilities without Phase II vapor recovery nozzles $427.1139 $427.11 9. Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer 250 pounds or less $2,278.3894 $2,278.38 Over 250 pounds $5,696.6341 $5,696.63 10. Rock Crusher Fee, per device $56.9574 $56.95 11. Stacker Belt Fee, per stacker belt $56.9574 $56.95

B-1. Fee for Air Quality Plans (cost per ton)

0 to ≤ 10 tons per year $0.0000 $0.00

>10 to ≤ 25 tons per year $44.1508 $44.15

>25 to ≤ 100 tons per year $66.9204 $66.92 > 100 tons per year $88.3019 $88.30

B-2. Fee for Air Toxics Program (cost per pound of air toxic emissions) 0 to 2,000 pounds per year $0.0000 $0.00
> 2,000 pounds per year $0.2798 $0.27

B-3. Annual Emission Fees

0 to ≤ 10 tons per year (total) $355.6932 $355.69

> 10 to ≤ 25 tons per year (cost per ton) $98.2650 $98.26

# Rule 210 Fees Adjusted for the Change in the
California Consumer Price Index a

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 CPI-Adjusted Fees Page 2 July 1, 2007 > 25 to ≤ 100 tons per year (cost per ton) $148.1139 $148.11 > 100 tons per year (cost per ton) $196.5413 $196.54

# Rule 210 Fees Adjusted for the Change in the
California Consumer Price Index a

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 CPI-Adjusted Fees Page 3 July 1, 2007 Rule 210 Fee Rate

Fee CPIAdjusted In Effect

Schedule Section Fee July 1, 2007

C. Source Tests

Boiler or heater $1,459.8044 $1,459.80 Piston type engine one engine $1,459.8044 $1,459.80 each additional engine $388.7952 $388.79

Thermal oxidizer $1,459.8044 $1,459.80 Wet scrubber (gaseous) $1,459.8044 $1,459.80 Wet scrubber (particulate) $1,944.0328 $1,944.03 Baghouse $1,944.0328 $1,944.03

Gas Turbine $1,944.0328 $1,944.03

Heater Treater $1,944.0328 $1,944.03

Other $1,944.0328 $1,944.03

D. Sample and Laboratory Analysis Fee (cost per sample)

Sulfur in Fuel Oil $175.1486 $175.14

Sulfur in Fuel Gas $281.5858 $281.58

Btu in Fuel Gas $281.5858 $281.58

Crude Oil TVP $444.6221 $444.62 Coatings - Volatile Content $338.1851 $338.18 Solvent Speciation $494.4822 $494.48 Asphalt Analysis $281.5858 $281.58

Asbestos Content $138.7666 $138.76

E. Fees for Asbestos Demolition and Renovation Demolition only - less than 260 linear feet or 160 square feet $106.8175 $106.81

Demolition and renovations less than 500 linear or square feet $427.2595 $427.25

500 to ≤ 1,000 linear or square feet $605.2852 $605.28
>1,000 to ≤ 2,500 linear or square feet $811.8010 $811.80
>2,500 to ≤ 5,000 linear or square feet $1,004.0548 $1,004.05
> 5,000 to ≤ 10,000 linear or square feet $1,174.9610 $1,174.96 > 10,000 linear or square feet $1,388.5851 $1,388.58

F. Schedule F 1. ATC/PTO Filing fee, per application $325.7592 $325.00 b

2. Minimum PTO reevaluation fee $354.8648 $354.00 b

3. Yearly PTO reevaluation fee - vehicle fueling facilities, per nozzle $19.9371 $19.93
4. Additional reinspection fee for vehicle fueling facilities, per nozzle $19.9371 $19.93
5. Fee for change in production rate, per permit $354.8648 $354.00 b

6. Fee for administrative change, per permit $354.8648 $354.00 b

7. Fee for cooling towers with hexavalent chromium $440.5921 $440.59
8. Fee for cooling towers with hex. chromium, delayed compliance $141.4645 $141.46
9. Annual atmospheric acidity protection program fee, per source $497.0347 $497.00 b

10. Annual California Clean Air Act fee, per source $497.0347 $497.00 b

11. Fee for written exemption $497.0347 $497.00 b

# Rule 210 Fees Adjusted for the Change in the
California Consumer Price Index a

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 CPI-Adjusted Fees Page 4 July 1, 2007 (Schedule F is continued on the next page.)

# Rule 210 Fees Adjusted for the Change in the
California Consumer Price Index a

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 CPI-Adjusted Fees Page 5 July 1, 2007 Rule 210 Fee Rate

Fee CPIAdjusted In Effect

Schedule Section Fee July 1, 2007

F. Schedule F (continued) 12. Hearing Board Fee 12.a Filing Fee (fixed fee permit) Emergency variance Length of variance is 15 days or less $83.9585 $83.00 b
Length of variance is more than 15 days $169.0365 $169.00 b

Interim variance $197.0227 $197.00 b
90 day variance $1,066.8336 $1,066.00 b
Regular variance $1,066.8336 $1,066.00 b
Additional fee/month for regular variance more than 3 mo. $390.7319 $390.73 12.b Filing Fee (Reimbursable Permit) Emergency $83.9585 $83.00 b

Interim $490.3180 $490.00 b
90 day variance $490.3180 $490.00 b
Regular $490.3180 $490.00 b
12.c Permit appeal filing fee, per petition $567.5599 $567.00 b
12.d. Permit appeal hearing time, after first day for each two hours $284.2948 $284.29 12.e. Excess emission fee, per ton $227.8522 $227.85

a The Rule 210 fees for fiscal year 2007/2008 shall be the “CPI-Adjusted Fee.” Assuming there are no fee revisions, this fee will be used to calculate future CPI fee increases. For purposes of administrative convenience for fiscal year 2007/2008, the Dist rict will charge the “Fee Rate,” which is the CPI-Adjusted Fee rounded down to the

nearest cent or nearest dolla r. The APCD revised the fees in accordan ce with Rule 210.V.C. These fees are effective July 1, 2007 and they are based on a California Consumer Price Index increase of 3.4 percent (April 2006 to April 2007). The APCD calculated the CPI-adjusted fee rates shown in the table by applying the 3.4 percent CPI increase to the fiscal year 2006/2007 CPI-adjusted fee rates a nd rounding the results down to four decimal places.

b The APCD rounded this fee down to the nearest dollar.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 1 March 17, 2005 RULE 210. FEES. (Adopted 10/18/1971, revised 5/1/1972, 6/16/1975, 6/1976 and 7/24/1978, readopted 10/23/1978, revised 5/17/1980, 6/1980, 12/14/1981, 6/30/1986, 12/15/1986, 8/8/1988, 5/2/1989, 12/12/1989, 2/13/1990, 3/27/1990, 6/5/1990, 12/18/1990, 3/5/1991, 5/7/1991, 4/17/1997, and 3/17/2005)

SCOPE AND PURPOSE

This rule establishes the framework fo r a comprehensive system for recovering expenses incurred for the regulatory programs, plans, procedures and tasks necessary for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (the District) to carry out its mandate under the Clean Air Act and California law. The purpose of this rule is to allow

the District to recover its reasonable costs incurred for di rect and incidental costs associated with its activities, including but not limited to the issuance of permits, inspection, enforcement, planning, research and administration. Authority to establish said regulation is provided for in Health & Safety Code Sections 41512, 41512.5, 42311, and

42364.

I. FEES FOR SOURCES WITH DISTRICT PERMITS

Permit related fees are assessed for District activities whic h are related to stationary sources requiring a District permit. The activities include, but are not limited to: review and evaluation of applications; reevaluation of permits; source testing; ambient air quality and con tinuous emissions monitori ng; review, evaluation, implementation of plans, agreements, studies, programs and notices; research; planning and implementation of measures to attain and maintain air quality standards and control of air toxics.

A. Filing Fee

The application filing fee for an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate is specified in item

1 of Schedule F.

B. Fee Schedule Basis

1. Evaluation Fee

The fee for processing any application for a new or modified Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate shall be calculated acco rding to the Facility/Equipment Description (see Schedule A), except where (1) the application is for a source wh ich the District determines has the potential to require offsets (or trade-offs), air quality impact analysis, computer modeling or monitoring pursuant to Regulation VIII, or (2) the application is for any of the categories of equipment listed below in (a) through (e), in which case the fee shall be assessed on the Cost Reimbursement Basis set forth in Section I.C., below.

a. Equipment associated with landfill or storage/treatment pond projects.

b. Equipment associated with resource recovery projects.

c. Equipment associated with energy cogeneration projects.

d. Equipment associated with power plant projects.

e. Other projects and the related equipment, determined by the District for good cause to require sufficient analysis such that the use of fee schedules shown in Attachment A will

not enable the District to recove r the cost of permit evaluation.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 2 March 17, 2005 If an application is withdrawn or the District stops work on the processing of a permit at the request of the applicant, the applicant shall pay a percentage of the evaluation fees as determined by the District based on the work completed to date.

2. Reevaluation Fee

Every three years the District shall reevaluate a PTO to insure compliance by the operator with listed permit conditions and all applicable Distri ct Rules and Regulations. The fee shall be

calculated in the same manner as the PTO evaluati on fees prescribed in S ection I.B.1., with the following exceptions:

a. The minimum triennial reevaluation fee fo r a stationary source is specified in item 2 of Schedule F to cover costs of District inspection visits as well as the engineering work related to the permits.

b. For motor vehicle fueling facilities equipped with Phase II vapor recovery nozzles, reevaluation of nozzles (and storage tanks) shall be on an annual basis; the minimum fee specified in item 2 of Schedule F shall not be applicable. The annual fee shall be calculated as specified in item 3 of Schedule F. If the equipment fails the first inspection, fees for any additional inspections shall be assessed specified in item 4 of Schedule F. The annual fee shall be paid within 30 days after notification by the District of the

amount due.

c. Consecutive triennial reevaluations shall not be billed within any one 12 month consecutive period.

The fee for any stationary source, for which a valid PTO exists on the date of adoption of this rule, may be reevaluated on the basis of District cost reimbursement, as prescribed in Section I.C., if any of three conditions is satisfied: (1) the sum of the emissions of Reactive Organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen, Gaseous Sulf ur Compounds, and Particulate Matter from all equipment exceeds 25 tons per year, (2) the exis ting permit is for any category of equipment identified in Section I.B.1.a. through Section I.B.1.e., (3) a prior ATC, PTO or reevaluation was conducted under the provisions of Section I.C. (Cos t Reimbursement). The next scheduled permit reevaluation date after adoption of this rule shall be the date for determining the permit reevaluation fee on the cost reimbursement basis. The District shall notify the permit holder of the deposit amount required and no permit reeval uation expenses shall be incurred until the deposit is received. The fee shall include any e xpenses for inspection, source testing or plan development that is part of the permit reevalua tion. Subsequent to the first reevaluation on the cost reimbursement basis, all costs for District ac tivities associated with the stationary source shall be charged to the permit holder on the basis of cost reimbursement.

C. Cost Reimbursement Basis for Determining Fees

a. Reimbursable Costs

1) The applicant or permit holder shall reimburse the District for all "reimbursable costs," as defined below.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 3 March 17, 2005 2) Reimbursable costs are defined as:

a) District Labor. District labor costs incurred as a result of time spent by District employees and County Counsel for conducti ng necessary work with regard to a permit application or permit. Hourly rates, including District overhead costs, and County Counsel rates shall be established by the County Auditor-Controller. The rates charged are those established for the dates when work is performed.

b) Overtime. Overtime costs reas onably incurred by the District. Overtime shall be charged at 1.50 times the base hourly rate. Overhead will be charged only on the base rate. Overtime shall only be charged to an application, permit or source upon which overtime effort is expended.

c) Contractors. Outside consultants and contractors. Outside consultants and contractors may be hired by the District, when necessary to assist in conducting the necessary work subject to the provisions below.

i. Prior to utilizing the services of any outside consultant, the District shall (a) notify the applicant or permit holder, in writing, of the reasons why an outside consultant will be retained and (b) provide the applicant or permit holder with the proposed scope of work and (c) identify the consultant proposed by the District. The applicant or permit holder shall have the right to review and comment on the scope of work and to propose no more than three (3) additional consultants or contractors; however, such consideration shall not require a competitive bidding process or a written decision by the District. If at any time the Dist rict deems it necessary to make additions, deletions or other modifications to the scope of work, the applicant or permit holder shall have the right to review, and provide comment on the modified scope of work.

If the District elects not to revi se the scope of work which an applicant or permit holder desires to revise, the District shall advise the applicant or permit holder in writing as to the

reasons for the District's decision.

ii. All proposed contracts which are to be administered under the

District's Cost Reimbursement Provisions will be competitively bid if requested in writing by the applicant or permit holder prior to an application being deemed complete. Requests for Proposals (RFPs) with respect to all proposed contracts will be sent to all bidders deemed qualified by the District. District costs for administering the bidding process are reimbursable costs. The app licant shall have the right to appeal the District's selecti on of and/or the need for a consultant or contractor within ten (10) days to the Air Pollution Control Officer, whose decision shall be final. The Air Pollution Control Officer shall notify the applicant or permit holder in writing of the decision and the reasons

therefore.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 4 March 17, 2005 iii. In the event an applicant requests use of competitively bid contracts an application sha ll be automatically deemed incomplete for purposes of District Rules and Regulations and any applicable timelines specified under the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code section 65943, shall be waived by the applicant pending selection of an outside

consultant and execution of a contract.

iv. If the need for an outside consultant is determined by the District after an application is deemed complete, the procedure of Section I.C.a.2)c)i. shall apply.

b. Notice of Cost Reimbursement and Appeal

1) The District shall notify the applicant or permit holder in writing that (a) the

District has determined the work w ill be done on the Cost Reimbursement Basis, (b) the grounds for such determination, (c) the projected total cost to obtain the permit applied for, and (d) the initial deposit amount as determined pursuant to Section I.C.d.

2) Upon receipt of such notification, the applicant or permit holder shall have ten (10) days in which to appeal the District's determination to use the cost reimbursement basis to the District Board of Directors. Failure to appeal within said ten (10) days shall bar the applicant or permit holder from contesting the

Cost Reimbursement Basis.

3) Prior to the District Board heari ng any appeal, the applicant or permit holder shall place on deposit with the District an amount equal to the District's projected costs for the next thirty (30) days of District work on the project. If the District prevails, the amount on deposit shall be applied to the cost reimbursement deposit.

4) Pending conclusion of any appeal pursuant to Section I.C.b., an application for permit shall be automatically deemed incomplete for purposes of District Rules and Regulations and any applicable timelines specified under the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code section 65943 shall be waived by the applicant.

5) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this rule, the applicant or permit holder

shall reimburse the District for costs asso ciated with an appeal if the District prevails. If the appellant prevails, the Di strict Board of Directors may, at its discretion, order that all or a portion of the costs paid be reimbursed to the appellant.

c. Audits

The applicant or permit holder shall have the right to audit any disputed reimbursable cost charged by the District.

1) If an applicant or permit holder elects to audit a disputed reimbursable cost item, the party shall notify the District in writing within thirty (30) days after the date of invoice and shall identify the reasons for the dispute.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 5 March 17, 2005 2) The District shall provide the applicant or permit holder with documentary evidence supporting the basis and accuracy of the disputed reimbursable cost item. The District shall provide the documentation within thirty (30) days after receipt of written request, except that the Control Officer may extend the deadline for good cause.

3) If within fifteen (15) days of r eceipt from the District of the documentary evidence supporting the item, the dispute still remains, the applicant or permit holder may request an inde pendent audit. The audit will be conducted by an independent auditor, approved by the applicant and the District.

4) Notwithstanding the provisions of I.C.c.1) and I.C.c.3), above, an applicant or permit holder may dispute any alleged fraudulent reimbursable cost by notifying the Control Officer in writing within 30 days of when the applicant or permit

holder discovered or should have disc overed the fraud. Such notice shall contain a detailed description of the facts and any available evidence which support the allegation. The Control Officer may order an audit and/or require additional information from the applicant or permit holder. The Control Officer shall issue a determination, in writing, w ithin 60 days after receipt of the notice, which time may be extended by the Control Officer for good cause. The Control Officer may order all or a portion of the disputed cost and any costs incurred pursuant to I.C.c.5, below, be reimbursed to the applicant or permit

holder. The Control Officer's decision shall be final.

5) Notwithstanding any ongoing dispute over costs, including where an audit is requested, the applicant or permit holder shall reimburse the District for all reimbursable costs no later than thirty (30) days after the date of invoice. Failure to pay all fees is grounds for discontinuing all District work on the Project and for denial of the permit application or for not renewing an existing permit. Costs incurred by the District pursuant to Sections I.C.c.2), I.C.c.3) and I.C.c.4), above, are reimbursable costs under this rule.

d. Deposits

When the cost reimbursement basis is used for District work, the applicant or permit holder shall place on deposit adequate funds to cover projected reimbursable costs for th e next ninety (90) days of District work on the project. The District shall bill the applicant or permit holder monthly for all incurred expenses and the applicant or permit holder shall reimburse the District within thirty (30) days after the date of the monthly invoice. This process shall ensure sufficient funds are kept on deposit with the District to authorize necessary expenditures without delaying the work to be performed.

1) Funds placed on deposit will be subj ect to the handling charges and credited with interest payments specified in the policy of the Santa Barbara County Auditor Controller's Office including updates.

2) At the time the District requests the deposit of funds, or the payment in lieu of initial deposit, the District shall identify in writing the basis for the estimate of the projected costs to cover the first ninety (90) days of application evaluation.

3) If, at any time during the District's work, the District determines that additional funds are necessary to cover reimbursable co sts for the next ninety (90) days, an additional deposit may be required of th e applicant or permit holder. The District's request for an additional deposit shall be in writing and specify theSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 6 March 17, 2005 basis for such request. The applicant or permit holder shall pay the additional funds within thirty (30) days after the date of an invoice from the District.

4) If at any time the District determines that the amount on deposit is greater than that needed to cover the projected costs for the next ninety (90) day period, the

District shall return the amount of the deposit which exceeds the projected costs.

5) An applicant or permit holder shall maintain on deposit with the District, sufficient funds to cover projected District cost for a ninety (90) day period for work performed after permit issuance.

6) If, at any time during the evaluation of an application or permit, the application is withdrawn or a permit is terminated, or canceled, the amount remaining in the applicant's deposit account shall be ref unded, provided that all reimbursable costs for said application or permit have been deducted, including costs reasonably incurred after date of notification, by the District prior to refunding.

Notwithstanding the above, if the projected total cost for District review of an application or a permit is less than $1,500, the District may request the total projected amount as a nonrefundable, lump sum payment in lieu of an initial deposit.

D. Source Test and Sampling Fees

These fees shall be in addition to other fees charged pursuant to this section.

1. The District may order Source Testing

a. Pursuant to Rule 205.D., prior to the issuance or reissuance of any permit.

b. If the District has reasonable cause to belie ve that discharge of air contaminants into the atmosphere from any source violates any permit condition or any federal, state or local law, order, rule or regulation relating to air pollution.

If the source testing is conducted by the District or its agent, the permit holder or other billable entity responsible for complying w ith District Rules and Regulations shall pay a fee for the source testing based on the provisions of Section I.C. (Cost Reimbursement).

Alternatively, at the request and expense of the permit holder and with the approval of the District, testing may be performed by a private company. In this case, a fee to recover District costs for review of the source test plan, observation of the source test and evaluation of the source

test results shall be assessed as follows:

c. Unless otherwise provided in this Rule, if a source was assessed a fee for a District permit under the provisions of Section I.B. (Fee Schedule Basis) or if the source is not required to have a Dist rict permit, the fee shall be a ssessed in accordance with Schedule

C.

d. If a source was assessed a fee for a District permit under the provisions of Section I.C. (Cost Reimbursement Basis), the fee shall be assessed in accordance with Section I.C.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 7 March 17, 2005 2. Sampling of Products and Materials

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 41512, if the District determines that sampling and analysis of products or materials are required to determine compliance with District Rules and Regulations, the permit holder or other billable entity responsible for complying with District Rules and Regulations shall be assesse d a fee in accordance with Schedule D.

E. Other Fees

1. Transfer of Ownership

An application filed for purposes of transfe rring a permit from one permit holder to another shall pay a filing fee as specified in item 1 of Schedule F. A change in business name only shall not be

assessed a fee.

2. Change in Location

An application to change the location of a permitted item of equipment within the existing boundaries of the facility, which the District determines will have no potential impact on air quality, shall not be assessed a fee. An application to relocate a permitted item of equipment to a new site, outside the existing boundaries of the fac ility, shall be assessed the filing fee, plus the permit fee for a new ATC and/or PTO as prescribed in Section I.B. or I.C.

3. Change in Permitted Production Rate

An applicant requesting modification of a permit to decrease production rate or throughput limits shall be assessed a fee as specified in item 5 of Schedule F. If the District determines costs will

not be recovered from item 5 of Schedule F the C ontrol Officer shall have the option of placing the request under Cost Reimbursement basis as prescribed in Section I.C. If the District determines the modification has the potential to increase emissions or impacts, the applicant shall be assessed fees for the permit modification(s) as prescribed in Section I.B. or I.C..

4. Fee For Administrative Changes

Changes to permits which are deemed by the Control Officer to be administrative shall be assessed and a fee as specified in item 6 of Schedule F.

5. Cooling Towers with Hexavalent Chromium

a. Any person submitting a compliance plan pur suant to Rule 335, Section I.2. shall pay a fee as specified in item 7 of Schedule F.

b. Any person submitting a compliance plan pur suant to Rule 335, Section I.2. with the delayed compliance date for wooden cooling to wers (Section C.4) shall pay an additional plan filing fee as specified in item 8 of Schedule F.

c. The required filing fee shall be paid when the compliance plan is submitted.

6. Other Changes

An application to change any provision of an existing permit, other than those changes described in Section E.1. through E.4 above, shall be assesse d all fees for a modified ATC and/or PTO as prescribed in Section I.A., I.B. or I.C.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 8 March 17, 2005 F. Air Quality Plans

The fees charged under this Section of Rule 210 ar e earmarked for the preparation of mandated air quality plans necessary for the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.

Preparation of Air Quality Plans are mandated by a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call, issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or by the State pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 40910 et. seq. Fees may be assessed to cover District costs incurred upon notification by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of an upcoming SIP call as well as after formal notification by EPA. The Control Officer shall report to the Ex ecutive Board of the Distri ct on a triennial basis summarizing the work performed during the proceeding three years, the work planned and the continued adequacy and necessity of this fee.

Fees shall be charged annually to cover costs incu rred by the County for prepar ation of each Air Quality

Plan.

1. Applicability.

a. All holders of District permits for Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate whose stationary source, as defined in Rule 102, discharges pollutants within the District, shall pay an annual fee as follows:

1) Only the pollutants, including precursor pollutants, identified by the EPA in the SIP call or designated a non-attainment pollutant by the Air Resources Board (ARB) shall be included in determining the annual fee.

2) Stationary sources that discharge ten (10) tons or more per year of any one ofthe pollutants identified by the EPA in the SIP call or designated a nonattainment pollutant by the State Board shall be included in assessing the fee.

3) The stationary source subject to the fee shall be:

a) for a SIP call, all sources locat ed in the geographic region identified in the SIP call;

b) for state mandated plans, all sources located in the geographic region identified by the State Board; or

c) the Control Officer shall designate the planning area if a region is not identified as specified above.

b. The annual fee shall be calculated and asse ssed as specified in Sections I.F.2 and I.F.3.

2. Basis of Fee

a. Fees shall be assessed for stationary s ources based on emissions. The emissions shall be

determined as follows:

1) For a stationary source which recei ves a PTO on or after January 1, 1988, the fee shall be based on the maximum emissions permitted by the PTO except for sources described in Section I.F.2.a.2) below. For a stationary source whichSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 9 March 17, 2005 held an ATC, but not a PTO, on or after January 1, 1988, the fee shall be based on maximum annual emissions permitted by the ATC.

2) For a source which receives a PTO af ter January 1, 1988, to comply with Rule 202 exemptions from permit, as revi sed December 7, 1987 and January 11, 1988, the fee shall be based on emission quantities used for assessment of fees pursuant to Section I.H. based on actual annual emissions at the stationary

source.

3) For a stationary source which held a PTO on or prior to January l, 1988, the fee shall be based on emission quantities used for assessment of fees pursuant to

Section I.H.

c. The District may adopt, by regulation, a schedule of fees to be assessed on areawide or indirect sources which are regul ated, but for which permits are not issued by the District to recover the costs of District programs rela ted to these sources (Health & Safety Code Section 42311(g).

3. Fee Schedule and Assessment of Fee.

a. The schedule of fees to be charged for each ton of pollutants subject to this Rule is specified in Schedule B-1.

b. The annual fee assessed for each stationary source shall be calculated as the stationarysource emissions within the District multiplied by the unit fee prescribed in Schedule B1.

G. Air Toxics Program

All stationary sources with a District permit sha ll pay an annual fee based on annual emissions multiplied by the Air Toxics Program unit fee prescribed in Schedule B-2. The annual toxic emissions shall be determined pursuant to Section I.H. The fees asse ssed under this provision are independent of any permit fees that may be assessed for an ATC, PTO or reissuance of a PTO.

H. Annual Emission Fee

1. All stationary sources subject to District pe rmit shall pay an annual fee based on annual emissions multiplied by the unit fees prescribed in Schedule B-3. Actual emissions shall be based on data provided by the permit holder and verified by the District. Such Data shall be sufficient to

calculate the total emissions of each air contamin ant for all permitted equipment at a stationary source. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 42303, all permit holders subject to this provision shall submit data which are determined necessary by the District to calculate actual emissions. The necessary data shall be submitte d within 30 calendar days after receipt of the request from the District.

2. For stationary sources eval uated under Regulation VIII, the a nnual fee due for each contaminant shall be reduced by the "increment fee" as speci fied in Regulation VIII pa id for that contaminant during the prior twelve months.

I. Programs Conducted by the State Air Resources Board

The fees assessed under this Section are collected by the District and transmitted to the ARB to enable the ARB to implement the Atmospheric Acidity Protecti on Program (AAPP) and the California Clean Air ActSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 10 March 17, 2005 (CCAA) mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 39900 et. seq. and Sections 90800-90803, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, respectively. The f ees are based on emissions and shall be assessed for certain stationary sources.

AAPP fees shall be assessed for stationary sources w ith a PTO that discharge 500 tons or more of either nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides in any calendar year.

CCAA fees shall be assessed for stationary sources with PTO that discharge 500 tons or more, in any calendar year, of any nonattainment pollutant, or precursor.

Both the fees and the calendar year on which the fees are based shall be determined by the ARB, calculated by the following formula:

AAPP Fee amount = A x AAPP Unit Fee

CCAA Fee amount = B x CCAA Unit Fee

where:

A = total tons per year of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, expressed as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, respectively, from the stationary source during a calendar year. In calculating the fee amount, the actual emissions of either nitrogen oxides or sulfur oxides, if less than 500 tons per year, shall not be counted.

B = total tons per year of the nonattainment and precursor pollutants form the stationary source during a calendar year. The nitrogen oxide and su lfur oxide pollutants shall be expressed as nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, respectively. In calculating the fee amount, the actual emissions of any nonattainment pollutant or it's precursors if less than 500 tons per year, shall not

be counted.

AAPP and CCAA Unit Fee = fee expressed as dolla rs per ton specified fo r each fiscal year, as determined by the ARB for each of the two programs.

To cover District costs for the co llection of the AAPP and CCAA fees, an administrative fee as specified in items 9 and 10, respectively, of Schedule F shall be assessed for each stationary source and for each of the two ARB programs.

Payment of the AAPP and CCAA fees shall be made to the District within sixty (60) calendar days after

the invoice date.

II. FEES FOR SOURCES WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE DISTRICT PERMITS

Fees shall be charged to sources of emissions which do not require a District permit, if the District incurs cost to evaluate plans required by law or to determine whether a source is in compliance with federal, state or local air quality rules and regulations.

A. Fees for Asbestos Demolition and Renovation

A non-refundable fee shall be asse ssed for asbestos demolition and re novation operations subject to the notification provisions of District Regulation X, Rule 1001, National Emissi on Standards for Hazardous

Pollutants. The fee shall be asse ssed in accordance with Schedule E and shall be paid by the asbestos

demolition and renovation cont ractor at the time an asbestos de molition and renovation project notice is

filed with the District.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 11 March 17, 2005 B. Fees for Determination of Permit Exemption

If a request is made for a written determination of whether equipment is exempt from the requirement for a District permit, a fee as specified in item 11 of Sc hedule F shall be assessed to the equipment owner or operator to determine the eligibility for exemption.

III. OTHER COST REIM BURSEMENT ACTIVITIES

A. Monitoring Fee

The owner/operator of a stationary source shall pay all District costs associated w ith installation, operation, maintenance of equipment, and the review, transmittal, storage, and evaluation of data for ambient and continuous emission monitoring activitie s required under District rules, regulations, permit conditions, or agreements. These costs shall be assessed and paid in accordance with Section I.C. (Cost Reimbursement Basis).

B. Other Inspection and Enforcement Fees

If inspection and enforcement activities are required by permit conditions or to investigate or correct a violation, and the District determines a permit holde r is responsible, a fee may be assessed and shall be paid by the violator as prescribed in Section I.C. (Cost Reimbursement Basis). Violations are defined as infractions of District rules or specific permit conditi ons. The District's activities may be triggered by the following conditions:

1. Notice of Violation which leads to a settlement in which the permit holder agrees to pay such cost or where the Notice of Violation results in a finding that the permit holder has committed the alleged violation.

2. Inspections and other ac tivities required by permit conditions, including any plans or procedures which require District action, such emergency procedures.

C. Plans, Agreements, and Studies

Fees shall be assessed for District activities, identif ied below, which may be performed for a stationary

source. The fee shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section I.C. (Cost Reimbursement Basis) and shall be paid by the owner/operator of the st ationary source to the extent the District determines the need for the activity is caused by the stationary source. The activities include the following:

1. Review and preparation of plans including, but not limited to, Curtailment Plans, Episode Plans, Source Test Plans, Odor Monitoring Plans.

2. Review and preparation of special agreements, including offset agreements.

3. Review and preparation of special studies required by the District or requested by the applicant.

4. Review and preparation of environmenta l documents required under CEQA or NEPA in which the District is lead agency, responsible agency or trustee agency.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 12 March 17, 2005 IV. HEARING BOARD FEE

A. Variance

1. Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, every applicant or petitioner for a variance from these rules, except an emergency varian ce, shall pay a filing fee as speci fied in item 12.a of Schedule F.

2. If a petition is filed for a variance from the requirements of a District permit that was assessed a fee under Cost Reimbursement Basis, the petitioner shall pay a fee as speci fied in accordance with Section I.C. Additionally, every petitioner shall pay a filing fee as set forth in item 12.b of

Schedule F.

3. Each additional ton of pollutant emissions or portion thereof allowed as the result of the issuance of any variance shall result in an emission fee, calculated on th e basis of each excess ton of

emissions and a fee shall be assessed as specified in item 12.e. of Schedule F.

B. Permit Appeal

Every applicant or petitioner in a pr oceeding before the Hearing Board to appeal the denial, suspension or conditional approval of a permit shall pay a filing fee as specified in item 12.c. of Schedule F. An additional fee as specified in item 12.d. of Schedule F. shall be paid for each two hours, or portion thereof, of hearing in addition to the first hearing day necessary to dispose of the appeal. In the event a petition is withdrawn prior to the hearing, one-half the filing fee may be refunded. No appeal shall be heard unless all permit processing fees have been paid including thos e cases where the fee itself is being appealed. A portion of the fees may be refunded to the extent determined by the Hearing Board. The Hearing Board shall order the appeal filing fee refunded where the H earing Board determines the appellant has prevailed on the appeal.

Notwithstanding any fees assessed for evaluating or r eevaluating a permit, if the Hearing Board directs the District and the petitioner to negotiate the resolution of the issues under appeal and the negotiations are not conducted during a Hearing Board hearing, the Hearing Board shall establish a specified hour limit for negotiation and the petitioner shall be assessed a fee on the basis of Cost Reimbursement to recover costs for District staff and County Counsel labor incurred during such negotiations.

C. Abatement Orders

Upon investigation and determination that a viola tion of Health and Safety Code Sections 41700 or 41701 or of any order, permit condition or any District rule or regulation prohibiting or limiting the discharge of air contaminants into the air is found to exist, the Air Pollution Control Officer shall notify the violator in writing of the District's intent to assess fees to recover all administrative costs, including County Counsel costs, associated with the preparation, issuance and implementa tion of abatement orders and of the violator's right to a hearing on objections thereto. When an abatement order is issued and every thirty (30) calendar days thereafter until the case is concluded, an invoice shall be issued summarizing the labor hours and associated costs actually incurred payable by the violator. The labor costs shall be based on hourly rates, approved by the County Auditor-Controller in effect at the time costs are incurred. If the violator objects to the invoiced amount, a request to the Hearing Board for a hearing shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the invoice date. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the filing of a request for hearing and on ten (10) calendar days written notice to the violator, the hearing shall be held on the objection in order to determine the validity thereof. In the event no re quest for hearing is filed or after the Hearing Board affirms the validity of the invoiced costs, the violator shall pay the District the amount stated within thirty calendar (30) days of the invoice date if no request for h earing is filed or within thirty calendar (30) days of the hearing date if a hearing is held. These fees do not preclude fines collect ed under mutual settlement policy.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 13 March 17, 2005 V. GOVERNING PROVISIONS

A. Payment of Fees and Penalties

Unless otherwise provided in this Rule, this section is applicable to all fees mandated by this Rule and by the Health and Safety Code.

1. Payment of Fees

a. Payment of any filing fee shall be made at the time an application, petition or notice is

filed.

b. Payment of any fee other than a filing fee shall be made to the District within thirty (30) calendar days after the invoice date.

2. Penalty for Nonpayment of Fees Other Than Cost Reimbursement

If payment is not received within thirty (30) calendar days after the i nvoice date, the Air Pollution Control Officer shall promptly notify the person subject to the fee in writing that the payment is overdue and a penalty shall be imposed if payment is not received within si xty (60) calendar days of the invoice date. The penalty shall be ten ( 10) percent of the fee initially invoiced for each thirty (30) calendar day period, or portion thereof, that the payment is overdue and the Air Pollution Control Officer may initiate action to re voke the permit. For fees mandated by Health and Safety Code Sec tion 44300 et. seq., the penalty sha ll not exceed 100% of the fee.

3. Payment of Deposits and Fees Based on Co st Reimbursement and Requirements for Appeal

a. The applicant or permit holder shall make a deposit and pay any fee required pursuant to this Rule within thirty (30) days after the date of District invoice. If an applicant or permit holder fails to meet this requirement, the District may discontinue work on the project.

b. If an application for permit has been deemed complete and the initial deposit or other required fee is not paid within thirty (30) days after the date of District invoice, the Control Officer may deny the permit.

c. If the initial deposit or other required fee for reevaluation or implementation of an existing permit is not paid within thirty (30) days, after the date of District invoice, the permit may not be reissued and the existing permit may be suspended by the District or may be grounds for permit revocation pursuan t to Health and Safety Code Section

42307.

d. Where an application has been denied or an existing permit has been suspended pursuant to Sections V.A.3.b and V.A.3.c above, and that decision by the Air Pollution Control Officer has been appealed to the Hearing Board, the appeal shall not be heard until all

invoiced funds are submitted to th e District. Furthermore, th e appeal shall be dismissed by the Hearing Board if the appellant did not first exhaust the administrative remedies as

set forth in Sections I.C.b. and I.C.c.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 14 March 17, 2005 4. Failure to Obtain Permit

An applicant seeking an ATC or PTO for equipment for which an Authority to Construct was required but not obtained, shall pay a fee double that prescribed for the ATC in Section I. If operation of equipment is conducted without a valid PTO, the fee prescribed in Section I. for the PTO plus annual permit renewal and emission fees that would have been assessed with a valid PTO, shall be doubled. The amount due may be reduced by the amount paid under a Notice of

Violation issued for th e unpermitted equipment.

5. Payment for Reapplication

If a permit has been suspended or voided due to nonpayment of fees and application is made to reinstate the permit, no permit shall be issued and no cost will be incurred by the District with regard to that permit until all prior fees and associated penalties have been paid. If, during the processing/evaluation of a permit application, an application is withdrawn or payment of fees by the applicant does not conform to the provisions of this Rule, the District shall terminate work on the application. No reapplication, or any new application by the same applicant shall be accepted by the District until all fees and penalties for the terminated application have been paid.

6. Nonpayment of Fees - General

The District may refuse to issue or to rei ssue any permit or accept any application for a permit from an applicant or permit holder responsible for payment of any delinquent fee until all delinquent fees and all associated penalties are paid in full.

B. Effective Date

All fees specified in this Rule shall become effective on the date of Rule adoption.

C. Annual Adjustment in Fees

Any fees prescribed in this Rule may be adjusted annually by the Air Pollution Control Officer based on the change in the California Consumer Price Index (C PI) for the preceding year, as determined pursuant to

Section 2212 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. All othe r revisions of this Rule require approval of the District's Board of Directors. As provided for in Health and Safety Code, 42311, as amended, sufficient fees shall be charged to enable th e District to recover estimated reas onable costs of all District programs related to permitted stationary sources.

D. Use of Fee Schedules

In the event more than one fee sc hedule is applicable to an item of equipment, article, machine or other contrivance, the higher fee schedule shall prevail. Where several items of equipment are permitted under a single PTO, the fee shall be assessed as th e sum of the fees for the individual items.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 15 March 17, 2005 E. Consolidation of Existing Permits

Where more than one PTO has been issued for the equi pment at any one stationary source, and one or more of the permits is due for renewal, or an applicati on is filed for permit modification, the District may consolidate permits, including consolidation into a single permit for the entire plant or facility. At the time of consolidation, a single date will be set for permit renewal of all equipment included in the consolidated permit. In determining the fee for a consolidated permit, credit will be given for any PTO which has not yet expired on the issuance date of a consolidated permit. The fee for the consolidated permit will be reduced on a pro rata basis for the time remaining on the unexpired permit in determining the fee for the consolidated permit.

F. Rule Precedence and Applicability

Notwithstanding any rule to the contrary, this Rule shall apply to all permit holders or applicants regardless of the date of their application or permit issuance, and the rules in effect on that date. Pursuant to the Health and Safety Code, Sections 39047 and 42311(a), this section shall apply to all persons applying for a permit or holding a permit.

G. Refund of Filing Fee

Except as otherwise provided in this Rule, any requi red filing fee or portion thereof shall not be refunded or applied to any subsequent application or petition.

H. Reevaluation Date

The date on which a permit reevaluation is due is three years from the initial issuance of the PTO and every three years thereafter, notwithst anding any delay in reissuance of a PTO due to an appeal.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 16 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE A

Facility/Equipment Description / Fee Schedule

The fees prescribed in this section pertain to any article, machine, equipm ent or other contrivance (hereinafter, "equipment") which emits air contaminants, or causes such emissions, and which is not exempted under Rule 202.

1. Miscellaneous Equipment:

Miscellaneous equipment is any equipment not include d in a fee schedule listed below and which emits or may emit air contaminants or causes such emissions. Miscellaneous equipment shall be assessed a fee as

follows:

a. If equipment other than miscellaneous equipment at a stationary source is included in any fee schedule listed below, the miscellaneous equipm ent shall be assessed a fee of $40 per item of equipment.

b. If the miscellaneous equipment is the only equipment at a stationary source, the minimum fee

assessed under this schedule for all mi scellaneous equipment shall be $250.

2. Electric Motor Horsepower Fee Schedule:

Any equipment where an electric motor is used to drive the equipment, except for oilfield wellhead pumping units and items 10 and 11 of Schedule A, sha ll be assessed a fee based on the total rated motor horsepower of each motor included in any such equi pment, in accordance with the following formula:

Fee = $20.75 times (X), (rounded to nearest dollar) Where "X" is horsepower, and the Minimum fee = $40.34 Maximum fee = $4,015.00

3. Fuel Burning Equipment Fee Schedule:

Any equipment in which fuel is burned, with the ex ception of incinerators which are covered in Schedule 4, shall be assessed a fee based upon the maximum desi gn fuel consumption of the equipment expressed in British thermal units (Btu) per hour, using gross heating values of the fuel in accordance with the following

formula:

Fee = $300 times (X), (rounded to nearest dollar) Where "X" is the maximum fuel consumption in 1,000,000 Btu per hour and the Minimum fee = $40.34 Maximum fee = $4,015.00Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 17 March 17, 2005 4. Electrical Energy Fee Schedule:

Any equipment which uses electrical energy shall be assessed a fee based on the total kilovolt amperes (KVA) ratings, in accordance w ith the following formula:

Fee = $4.03 times (X), (rounded to the nearest dollar) Where "X" is the KVA rating in 10's, and the Minimum fee = $40.34 Maximum fee = $4,015.00

5. Incinerator Fee Schedule:

Any equipment used primarily to dispose of combustible refuse by wholly consuming the material charged, leaving only ashes or residue, shall be assessed a f ee based on the maximum cross sectional area of the combustion chamber(s), in accordan ce with the following formula:

Fee = $50 times (X), (rounded to nearest dollar)

Where "X" is the total horizontal inside cr oss-sectional area in square feet and the Minimum fee = $40.34 Maximum fee = $2,007.00

6. Stationary Container Fee Schedule:

Any stationary tank, reservoir, or other container, except gasoline storage tanks at motor vehicle fueling facilities, shall be assessed a fee based on volumetri c capacity, in accordance with the following formula:

Fee = $2.30 times (X), (rounded to nearest dollar) Where "X" is the capacity in 1000 gallons and the Minimum fee = $40.34 Maximum fee = $2,007.00

7. Dry Cleaning Equipment Fee Schedule:

Any equipment used in a dry cleaning operation usi ng organic solvents shall be assessed a fee of $40.00 for each item of equipment.

8. Motor Vehicle Gasoline Fueling Facilities Fee Schedule:

Motor vehicle gasoline fueling facilities equipped with Phase II vapor recovery dispensing nozzles shall be assessed a fee, which includes the fee for gasoline st orage tanks, in accordance w ith the following formula:

Fee = $23 times (X)

Where "X" is the number of nozzles and the Minimum fee = $160.00
Maximum fee; none

Motor vehicle gasoline fueling facilities without Ph ase II vapor recovery disp ensing nozzles shall be assessed a fee of $300.00 regardless of the number of dispensing nozzles.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 18 March 17, 2005 9. Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer Fee Schedule:

Any ethylene oxide sterilizer and associated control equipment shall be assessed a fee based on the total amount of ethylene oxide used, in accordance with the following formula:

Amount of Ethylene Oxide Used per Year, in Pounds Fee

250 pounds per year or less $1600.00 Over 250 pounds per year $4000.00

10. Rock Crusher Fee Schedule:

Equipment used to crush rocks shall be assessed a fee of $40.00 for each device. This applies to jaw
crushers, cone crushers, and hammer mills.

11. Stacker Belt Fee Schedule:

A belt used to stack minerals to form a storage p ile shall be assessed a fee of $40 for each stacker belt.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 19 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE B-1 FEE FOR AIR QUALITY PLAN

EMISSION RANGE (tons per year) AIR QUALITY PLAN FEE

0 - 10 0

>10 - 25 $31 per ton

>25 - 100 $47 per ton

>100 $62 per ton

Emission Range shall be determined as the sum of Reac tive Organic Compounds and Oxides of Nitrogen (expressed as nitrogen dioxide) for the ozone attainment plan pursuant to the California Clean Air Act of 1988.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 20 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE B-2

FEE FOR AIR TOXICS PROGRAM

EMISSION RANGE (pounds/year) AIR TOXICS PROGRAM UNIT FEE

0 - 2,000 0

> 2,000 $0.25 per pound of air toxic emissionsSanta Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 21 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE B-3

ANNUAL EMISSION FEE [Effective 5/7/91]

Emission Range (tons per year) Emission Fee

0 - 10 $250 total

>10 - 25 $ 55 per ton

>25 - 100 $ 83 per ton

>100 $110 per ton

Emission Range shall be determined as the sum of Reac tive Organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen (expressed as nitrogen dioxide), Gaseous Sulfur Compounds (expresse d as sulfur dioxide), and Particulate Matter.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 22 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE B - 3 [Effective July 1, 1991]

ANNUAL EMISSION FEE

Emission Range (tons per year) Emission Fee

0 - 10 $250 total

>10 - 25 $69 per ton

>25 - 100 $104 per ton

> 100 $138 per ton

Emission Range shall be determined as the sum of Reac tive Organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen (expressed as nitrogen dioxide), Gaseous Sulfur Compounds (expresse d as sulfur dioxide), and Particulate Matter.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 23 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE C FEES FOR REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND EVAL UATION OF SOURCE TESTS FOR EQUIPMENT

EVALUATED UNDER SCHEDULE A *

SOURCE SOURCE TEST FEE **

Boiler or Heater $1,025

Piston Type Engine - one engine $1,025 - each additional engine $ 273

Thermal Oxidizer $1,025

Wet Scrubber (gaseous) $1,025

Wet Scrubber (particulates) $1,365

Baghouse $1,365

Gas Turbine $1,365

Heater Treater $1,365

Other $1,365

* This fee schedule shall not be used to determine fees for source testing of equipment which discharges non-criteria pollutants, including toxics and heavy meta ls. Such equipment will be assessed fees on the Cost Reimbursement Basis (Section I.C.)

** If source testing includes determining the efficiency of an emission control device, the fee shall be increased by 50 percent. If source testing is conducted offshore, the fee shall be increased by 25
percent.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 24 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE D

SAMPLE AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS FEES

SAMPLE TYPE COST PER SAMPLE *

Sulfur in Fuel Oil $123

Sulfur in Fuel Gas $198

Btu in Fuel Gas $198

Crude Oil TVP $313

Coatings - Volatile Content $238

Solvent Speciation $348

Asphalt Analysis $198

Asbestos Content $ 98

* Fees include costs incurred by the District for sample analysis by an independent laboratory.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 25 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE E

FEES FOR ASBESTOS DEMOLITION AND RENOVATION

At the time written notice is required to be submitted to the District, contractors fo r asbestos demolition/renovation operations subject to District Regulation X., Rule 1001, S ubpart M of Attachment I and federal regulation 40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart 61.145, shall pay the following fee:

Quantity of Asbestos Fee

Demolition only:

Less than 260 linear feet or 160 square feet $75

Demolitions and renovations:

Greater than 260 linear feet or 160 square feet but less than 500 linear or square feet $300

Greater than 500 but less than 1000 $425

1000 or greater but less than 2500 $570

2500 or greater but less than 5000 $705

5000 or greater but less than 10,000 $825

10,000 or greater $975Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 26 March 17, 2005 SCHEDULE F

Item #

1. Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate Application Filing Fee - $230.41 per application.

2. Minimum triennial Permit to Oper ate reevaluation fee (except for moto r vehicle fueling facilities) - $250.

3. Annual Permit to Operate reevaluation fee for motor vehicle fueling facilities e quipped with Phase II vapor recovery nozzles - $14 per nozzle.

4. Additional reinspection fee for Phase II motor vehicl e fueling facilities failing the first inspection - $14 per nozzle per additional inspection.

5. Fee for change in Production rate - $250 per permit.

6. Fee for Administrative Change - $250 per permit.

7. Fee for Cooling Towers with Hexavalent Chromium compliance plan - $310 per compliance plan

submitted.

8. Fee for Cooling Towers with Hexavalent Chromium with delayed compliance plan date - $100 per delayed compliance plan submitted.

9. Annual Atmospheric Acidity Protection Program (AA PP) Administrative Fee - $350 per stationary source.

10. Annual California Clean Air Act (CCAA) Administrative Fee - $350 per stationary source.

11. Fee for Written Determination of Pe rmit Exemption - $350 per determination.

12. Hearing Board:

a. Filing Fee (Fixed Fee Permit):

- Emergency Variance: $60 if the requested length of the variance is fifteen (15) days or less; $120 if the requested length of the variance is greater than fifteen (15) days.

- Interim Variance $ 140 - 90 - day Variance $ 750 - Regular Variance $ 750

Additional Fee for Regular Variances:

Regular Variances: If the requested lengt h of the variance is greater than three (3) month, the petitioner shall pay an additi onal fee of $275 for each month or portion thereof over three (3) months th at the variance is requested.Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 27 March 17, 2005 b. Filing Fee (Cost Reimbursement Permit):

- Emergency Variance $60 - Interim Variance $345 - 90-day Variance $345 - Regular Variance $345

c. Permit appeal filing fee - $400 per petition.

d. Permit appeal hearing time after first h earing day, for each two hours or portion thereof - $200.

e. Excess emissions fee shall be $160 per ton.July 2 , 2008

VIA E

- MAIL TO PATRICK AU

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

Emissions Assessment Branch Stationary Source Division

Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: SIP Submittal for Revised Rules on Engine Requirements and Permitting Provisions (Rules 102,

201, 202, and 333)

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

On June 19, 2008, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors held a public hearing on adopting proposed revisions to Rule 102 , Definitions, Rule 201, Permits Required, Rule 202, Exemptions to Rule 201, and Rule 333, Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. After the public hearing, the Board adopted the revised rules. Transmitted with this letter ar e the adopted revised rules for inclusion in California State Implementation Plan.

The changes to the rules are summarized below:

 Rule 102, Definitions

The APCD added and modified several definitions that are used in various parts of the rulebook to imp rove rule clarity.

 Rule 201, Permits Required

The Rule 201.D.2 provisions on exempting or permitting pile drivers, pipe

- laying barges, and derrick barges has been relocated into Rule 202, Section F.7. The Rule 202.F.7 provision is expanded to include ca ble

- laying and pipe

laying vessels.

The Section D.1 alphanumerical designation is reduced to Section D (due to the relocation of Section D.2). The APCD added text to Rule 201, Section D, to indicate equipment use requires an Authority to Construct.

 Rule 202, Exemptions to Rule 201

The APCD 1) deleted the construction engine and well drilling equipment exemption, 2) added five new exemptions, and 3) modified several existing exemptions.

Through the course of the rulemaking effort, the APCD received requests to modify and add Rule 202 permit exemptions that are unrelated to the internal combustion engine exemptions. Staff considered each request and, where suitable, included the new or amended exemption provision.Santa Barbara County APCD SIP Submittal