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 Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions must be supported 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 submittal 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 package you send ARB. See the ARB's Guidelines on the Implementation 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 will 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 Combustion Engines 

Date Adopted or Amended: June 19, 2008

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS 

Note: All documents should be in electronic format. Items that have signatures, initials, or stamps 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 indicating in underline and strikeout format 

all language which has been added, deleted, or changed since the rule was 

last adopted or amended. 

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

includes language specifically 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, include a copy of the actual published 

notice of the public hearing as it appeared in the local newspaper(s). In this 

case, however, enough of the newspaper page must be included to show the 

date of publication. The notice must specifically identify by title and number 

each rule adopted or amended. 

 RESOLUTION/MINUTE ORDER: Provide the Board Clerk certified resolution 

or minute order. This document must include certification that the hearing 

was held in accordance with the information in the public notice. It must also 

list the rules that were adopted or amended, the date of the public hearing, 

and a statement of compliance with California Health and Safety Code 

Sections 40725-40728 (Administrative 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 staff or presented to the 

District Board at the public hearing. A summary of the public comments and 

responses is adequate. If there were no comments made during the notice 

period or at the hearing, 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 methods that are referenced in 

your rule that do not appear 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 automatically approved for air pollution 

applications. Submittal of test methods that are not EPA-approved should 

include the information and follow the procedure described in Region 9’s “Test 

Method Review & Evaluation 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 revisions which relax limits or cause a shift in 

emission patterns in a nonattainment area, a reference back to the approved 

SIP will be sufficient provided the approved 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 other information included with the 

submittal should discuss all potential relaxations or deviations from RACT, 

RACM, BACT, BACM, enforceability, attainment, RFP, or other relevant EPA 

requirements. This includes, for example, demonstrating that exemptions or 

emission limits less stringent than the presumptive RACT (e.g., a CTG) meet 

EPA’s 5 percent policy, and demonstrating that all source categories 

exempted from a RACM/BACM rule are de minimis according to EPA’s 

RACM/BACM policy. 

 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS: Provide District staff reports and any other 

supporting information concerning development 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 Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Santa Barbara County APCD

Rule No(s): 102, 201, 202, and 333 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: June 19, 2008

Rule Title(s): Definitions, Permits Required, Exemptions to Rule 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 Address: GrappleD@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 rulebook 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-laying 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 equipment 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 reference(s) for emission 

factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission 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 Air Plan (CAP) indicates 

for 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 SBCAPCD 2007 CAP, the baseline year used was 

2002; for the rulemaking effort, the baseline year used was 2005. Area Affected: Santa Barbara County
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD 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 the 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 baseline 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 and gas production related (SIC 1311). One 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 offshore 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): 

1.75 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: NIC-1 (aka CM 19) and N-IC-3 (aka CM 20). The 2007 CAP listed the year 2010 emission reductions 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 supporting 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 planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District 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 TPY) 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 02667 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 County
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD 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. EMISSION 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 Achieving Emission Reductions are: The SBCAPCD anticipates owners/operators will use 

the lean-burn tuning technique on spark ignition engines and the retardation of the injection timing technique for 

compression ignition engines. Other methods for achieving compliance with the emission limits include: Engine 

replacement with a newer, cleaner burning engine; use of anhydrous ammonia (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. And 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: The targeted engines for emission reductions changed slightly due to:

1. Changes in the inventory,

2. Changes in the equipment’s operating schedules (which made them exempt from the control requirements), and 

3. Implementation of the stationary compression ignition 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) 0.0178 -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 rulemaking calculations due to the equipment not being used 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 < 200 hours per year. By accepting this limit, the engine became
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM - Page 4

(Electronic Format)

exempt from Rule 333 emission 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 changes that occurred in 2005 as 

part of the ATCM implementation program. Thus, 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 from 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 horsepower 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 things that make it difficult to attribute their emission 

reductions to the 2008 rule revisions: 1) aside from the 2008 well drilling exemption change, these engines lost their 

exemption in 2005; and 2) the emission reductions from the ATCM overshadow emission reductions associated with 

Rule 333.




Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 1 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

RULE 333. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM 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 engines 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., tThe requirements of this Rrule shall not apply to:

a. EnginesSpark 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 meters

used, and 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 which 

that measures the volumes (ft3cubic feet) of landfill gas used and a separate fuel meter for 

the volume (ft3) 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 ft3cubic feet of landfill gas consumed annually x 100

 Percent of Fuel use Landfill Gas Percentage =

 Total Volume in ft3cubic 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 permit under the provisions of Rules 202, Exemptions to Rule 

201.

c. Any derated 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 Ignition (CI) Engines.

2. Engines which operate Any 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 

schedules for these provisions specified in Section 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 a 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 2 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

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

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 definitions not limited to this rule. For the purposes of this Rrule, 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 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.

“Cyclically-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 pumping 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 engine” 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 engine” means any engine which is not a cyclic engine.

“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.

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

a1. 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

b2. has been identified in an application for an ATC Authority to Construct submitted to and 

deemed complete by the District; or
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 3 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

c3. is an identical replacement 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 engine” 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 ignited, 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 volume, 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. Any engine modification that changes any rich-burn engine to a lean-burn engine or vice 

versa requires approval from the Control Officer in the form of a permit modification.

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

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

8. “Operating 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 Eengine” means a spark-ignited, Otto-cycle, or a any 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. Any engine modification that changes any rich-burn engine to a leanburn 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 stroke 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, 1997June 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 be 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 system requires 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 engine 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 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 calibrated periodically 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 [date of revised rule adoption], and 

b. are subject to the emission limits specified 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), corrected to 15 percent oxygen. 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. Continuous 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, the 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 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 5 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

continuous monitoring system for oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and oxygen shall suffice in 

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

DE. Requirements - Emission Limits

Owners or operators of engines shall meet the following requirements based on biennial source testing, in 

accordance with the compliance schedule set forth in Section IK:

1. Noncyclic Rich Rich-Burn Noncyclically-Loaded Spark Ignition Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from any such engine Rich burn 

noncyclic engines shall not exceed the following concentration limits corrected for oxygen:

Limit (ppmVppmv 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 Engines 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, 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 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, from any such engine Lean burn 

noncyclic engines shall not exceed the following limits as corrected for 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 4,500 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 6 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

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

Limit (ppmVppmv 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 meetAny 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 oxides 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, 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 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 maintain 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 instrument reading shall be recorded as set forth in Section H.

b. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from any such engine Cyclic engines 

shall not exceed the following limits, in accordance with Section I.:

 

Limit (ppmVppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

 

Pollutant 15% Oxygen 3% Oxygen

NOx 50300 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 noncyclic 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 7 April 17, 1997June 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 the compliance plan as set forth 

in Section F.

4. Compression Ignition Engines and Dual-Fuel Engines

a. The emission concentrations, corrected for oxygen, from 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 (ppmVppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

 

Pollutant 15% Oxygen 3% Oxygen

NOx 797700 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 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 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.

5. Alternative Emission Control Plan (AECP)

An owner or operator of any existing engine subject to this rule may meet the NOx 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 Control 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 

required 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 

calculated in accordance with Rule 802.F.2. When engine specific fuel usage is not 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 8 April 17, 1997June 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. Specify NOx, ROC and CO ppmv emission limits for each engine. NOx 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 maintaining 

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 nonexempt engines on District permits with these emission limits specified.

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

NOx emissions in accordance with Section G. (except the test shall be conducted for 30 

minutes) with the exhaust stream oxygen concentration adjusted to 2 percent 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 NOx ppmv limit and 

the baseline fuel usage. The uncontrolled emission rate shall be calculated as specified in 

Section D.5.c for engines 50 horsepower 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 specific 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., any 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 engines 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 requirements 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 the cost reimbursement provisions of Rule 210.

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

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

analysis indicates that the use is acceptable to the Control Officer.

EF. Requirements - Owner or Operator Engine Inspections and Maintenance Plan

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

in accordance 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 schedule specified in Section K:
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 9 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

1. The plan shall be submitted to the District by March 2, 1992. Obtain the Control Officer‟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. 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 noncyclicscompression ignition, or dual-fuel), and identify the method, engine and 

control equipment operating parametersparameter ranges, and compliance values, including engine 

exhaust oxygen concentration ranges, to be used to verify compliance with Section DE.

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.

43. A portable NOx emissions analyzer or any other method 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 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 performing monthly 

monitoring). All emission readings shall 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 

approved 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 Plan. 

An portable analyzer instrument reading in excess of the emission 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 inspectionout-ofcompliance reading. If an engine owner or operator or District 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 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 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 instrument 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 not 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. 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.

FG. Requirements - Compliance Plan

A compliance 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 planPlan. 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 I.2. K unless otherwise specified by the Control Officer. or I.3. to the 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 10 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

District for each stationary source 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. The owner or operator shall ensure that the Compliance Plan meets the 

following requirements and shall include:

1. a lList 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 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 PTO Permit to Operate number(if applicable);.

and

2. List manufacturer-tested typical emission 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.

34. 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 each engine 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.

46. 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 Compliance plan Plan by submitting a modified planPlan 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. [Reserved]

GI. 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, an initial emissions source test shall be 

performed on each stationary internal combustion engine to verify compliance with Section E. A 

After the initial source test, source tests shall be performed biennially to demonstrate compliance with 

Section DE. SThese 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. 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 may, on 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 11 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

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. An owner or operator of any engine shall A Source Test Plan shall be submitted to the 

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

start of a source test. The approved pPlan shall be on filed with the District at least thirty (30)

calendar days before the start of each source testing. 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 Source Test Plan shall describe which 

critical parameters will be measured for those 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 contractor certified by the California Air 

Resources Board. District required Ssource 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 submitted to the District within 45 days 

of completing the test. Reactive organic compounds, 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 combustion 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 

Section DE. as a result of source testing, shall comply with the following shall apply:

a. i. A rRepeat 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 Section D E by two consecutive annual source tests, the engine shall 

comply with the provisions of Section G.1.bI.1.

26. 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 GI.1.

37. Test Methods

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

NOx, CO, O2: 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, 1997June 19, 2008

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

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., pounds 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 , Sections 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.

vi. Fuel rate: Appropriate District-approved metering 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 corrected for 

temperature and pressure (standard conditions of 60°F and 29.92 inches of 

Mercury.

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

applicable standards developed by the ASTM International: ASTM Method 

1) ASTM D- 1945-8103, “Standard Test Method for Analysis of Natural 

Gas by Gas Chromatography,” ASTM International,

2) ASTM Method D- 3588-8198 (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 Calorimeter,” ASTM International.

The Control Officer may approve in writing alternative methods for determining 

the fuel composition or fuel higher heating value.

Pollutant Emission Rate: Calculated from exhaust concentration, fuel flow and fuel 

composition data as per EPA Method 19, Sections 2.1 and 3.2.1.
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 13 April 17, 1997June 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 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 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 

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 threshold 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 days 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 initial failed source 

test. 

HJ. 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 emission limit: 

a). Engine classification (rich-burn noncyclically-loaded spark ignition, rich-burn cyclicallyloaded 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. hHours of operation, as determined by a nonresettable elapsed operating time meter, each 

month for each engine since the last inspection; .

b)c. lLocation and hours of engine operation of the engine as 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, 1997June 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 oObservations 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. 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 Engine Operation, inspectionInspection, 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 any exemption 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-loaded spark ignition, rich-burn 

cyclically-loaded spark ignition, lean-burn spark ignition, compression ignition, or dualfuel), 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 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 any 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, 1997June 19, 2008

IK. Compliance Schedule

The owner or operator of any engine subject to this rule 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 corresponding 

onshore area. 

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

a. by March 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 

stationary 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 sufficient 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 emission limit:

The Rule 333 [date of revised rule adoption] 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, 1997June 19, 2008

Any engine previously subject to any emission limit in the April 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, 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 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 [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 the 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 

identification 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 engine 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 months 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 

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 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 17 April 17, 1997June 19, 2008

approved Compliance Plans will continue to be in force 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.
ATTACHMENT

Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 18 April 17, 1997June 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 

15% O2)

% 

Contro

l

ppmv (at 

15% O2)

Rich-Burn NoncyclicallyLoaded 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 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: Summarized 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 Adoption]

Adopted Rule 333 

Limits, ppmv (at 

15% O2)

Effect of Change

ROC CO ROC CO

Rich-Burn NoncyclicallyLoaded 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 Ignition 

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 limits
Santa 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 with 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 annual 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 

maintained 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 gas 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 derated 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 Ignition (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 operating 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 

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. 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 333 333 - 2 June 19, 2008

C. Definitions

See Rule 102 for definitions 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 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.

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

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. 

“Engine” 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 Permit 

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 crankshaft 

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 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 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 any 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 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 is less than 

or equal 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 engine 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 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 system requires 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 engine 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 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 calibrated periodically 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, and 
Santa 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 oxygen. 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. Continuous 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, the 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 Noncyclically-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 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. 
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 but 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 percent 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 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. Rich-Burn Cyclically-Loaded Spark 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 300 

ROC 250 

CO 4,500 
Santa 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 limits:

Limit (ppmv at 15 percent oxygen)

 

Pollutant 

NOx 700 

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 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 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.

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

analysis indicates 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 Officer‟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 ignition, 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 concentration 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 with 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 

performing 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 and 
Santa 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 emission 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 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 

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 

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 readings for each engine and control equipment 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 otherwise 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. The 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, compression 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 emission 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 engine 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 modified 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 performed 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 days 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 may, 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 and 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 testing 

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 Inspection 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 approved 

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 reported 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. Notwithstanding 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 with 

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 source 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.

ii. 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 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., pounds 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 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 metering 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 corrected 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 Gas 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 Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method),” 

ASTM International, and
Santa 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 Control 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 determining 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 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 

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 threshold 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 days 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 initial 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 cyclicallyloaded 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.
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 each 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 exemption 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-loaded spark ignition, rich-burn 

cyclically-loaded spark ignition, lean-burn spark ignition, compression ignition, or dualfuel), 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 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 any 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 - 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 the 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 April 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, shall 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 revisions 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, 2010, 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 identification 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 

approved 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 NoncyclicallyLoaded 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 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: Summarized Reactive 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 

15% O2)

Effect of Change

ROC CO ROC CO

Rich-Burn NoncyclicallyLoaded 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 Ignition 

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

Comments and Responses 1

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDED RULES 102 (DEFINITIONS), 201 

(PERMITS REQUIRED), 202 (EXEMPTIONS TO RULE 201), AND 333 (CONTROL OF 

EMISSIONS 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 

have 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 for 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 that 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 standard 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 entire 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 reduced 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 engines could 

complicate Greka's operations by having some 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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. 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 is 

demonstrated in three consecutive months (by 

portable analyzer readings or source test results).

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 APCD 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 comments:

 (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 

approval. 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 Exemption: 

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 January 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 equipment, 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: 

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 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 workshop response to 

VAFB question.
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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 concerned 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 

subject 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 

projects 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 for 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. Goldman 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 considers 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 restrictions 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 marine 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 address 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 200 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 subject 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 natural 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 Responses 4

We are proposing amendments to Rule 202.F.1.g to 

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 with 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 requirement to actual 

emissions3, 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 complexity 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 contribute 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 solvent. 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 understand 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 from 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 County 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 monitoring 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 Guidance 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 portable 

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

Comments and Responses 5

demonstrated in three consecutive months (by 

portable 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 

consecutive 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 additional 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 an 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 Company 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 powergenerating 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 engines 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 that 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 powergenerating micro-turbines as discussed between the 

District and The Gas Company 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 powergenerating micro-turbines in 202.F.1.g is inconsistent 

with other exemptions allowed in Rule 202. We 

understand that the language for the emission 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 calculated 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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.” However, 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 exemption 

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 

proposed 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 tons 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 exceeding 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 turbine 

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 certified 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 source 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 microturbines 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 August 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, 2006 (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 

Identification, 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 greater and 

permitted to operate in excess of 2000 hours per year 

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

Comments and Responses 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 

engine, 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 Available 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 IV17, §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 equipment. 

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 any 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 capture 

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, 

certification, 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 references 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 

troubleshooting 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, in 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 summary, 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 proposed 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 typical 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 during 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 contain 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 8

less gas inventory due to winter withdrawals. This 

depleted condition has lower back pressure and lower 

horsepower 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 means 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 specific 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 20% 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 or 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 

averaging 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 end 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 quarterly 

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 discussed, operation of these Main 

Units is predominately seasonal, occurring 

during the warmer months of the year when gas 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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 Utilities 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, 

its 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 

compress 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 analyzer 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 purpose 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 through 

March-Quarterly, April through SeptemberMonthly, and October through DecemberQuarterly. 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 Petroleum 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 and 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 Proposed 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 on the proposed deletion of this long 

standing exemption, but the manner in which this 

proposed revision was presented to WSPA and our 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 10

members. The SBCAPCD has on several occasions 

informed WSPA that it did not intend to eliminate 

this exemption. The SBCAPCD 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 exemption 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 gatekeeper 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 federal 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 

operators 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 eliminated.

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 community.

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 rulemaking 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 large 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 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 conduct normal 

business projects. WSPA suggests that a revision of 

the offset rules (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 California 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. 

Therefore, 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 Responses 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 sources 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 contained 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 SBCAPCD 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 time.

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. Engines 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 required 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 rulemaking 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 they 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 requirements 

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 

configurations. 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 

respond 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 VAFB, 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 fee by taking the fee from the 

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

Comments and Responses 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 threshold 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 proposed 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 threshold. 

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 

threshold 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 operators 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 subject 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). 

Including 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 SBCAPCD 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 determination 

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 reference.

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

Comments and Responses 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 provisions 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 continuous 

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 Determination. 

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 

calibration a continuous NOx 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 Officer. (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 

options 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, NOx 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 requirements 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 adds 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 Responses 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 Sacramento 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 guidance 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 implementing 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 suggestions 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 

frequency 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. 

RACT/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 hours 

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 requirement 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 assure 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 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 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/BARCT 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 complying 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 Responses 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 authority 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 require 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 this 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 input 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, 

refine, 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 staff 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 required 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 drilling 

equipment in place, the removal of the exemption will 

require the submittal of a PTO application within 90 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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 equipment 

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 engines 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 equipment 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, there 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 engines 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 drilling 

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 stationary 

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 engine 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 does 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 operations 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 17

since it is WSPA‟s understanding that a variance 

could 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 provisions. 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 exploratory drilling.

 Derrick barges with cranes for heavy lifting of 

platform extensions or lifting other equipment onto 

a platform.

 Pipeline construction/repair projects (e.g. bargemounted 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 that 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 

within 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 must 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 conduct 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/repair 

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

Comments and Responses 18

SBCAPCD staff has requested WSPA to propose a 

list of 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 

applicant 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 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. 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 SBCAPCD 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 addition 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 

marine 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 already 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 with 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 

equivalent 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 Responses 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 test 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 CARBcertified source testing contracting firms. The table 

below summarizes these investigations.

Jurisdiction Rule Required 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 

revision 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 testing 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 certification 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 enforceable 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 Responses 20

all the engines 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 for 

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 engines 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/Derrick 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 provisions 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 emit 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 included 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 emitting 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 associated 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 

interpretation 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 nothing 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 

construction 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 proposes 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 use 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 exemption (F.8) for 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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. 

The 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-submersible Drill Rigs, Drill Ships, and 

Jack-up Rigs

The SBCAPCD staff position is that semisubmersible 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 rigs. 

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 included 

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 semisubmersible 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 therefore 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 semisubmersible 

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 drilling 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 rule change 

due to a loss of exemption. Alternatively, existing 

drill rigs will also be able to obtain a PERP 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 22

registration as an “in use” engine. 

Notwithstanding the above explanation, new 

exploratory drilling operations will require a 

permit.

California 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 Control 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 request, 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 

ignition 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 stakeholders 

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 less-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 require 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 construction 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 13th Street Bridge caused by the Santa 

Ynez River. The 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 

structural upgrade on the 13th 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 not 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 23

require an ATC. The project is not subject to the 

construction 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 13th Street Bridge to support 

a new mission at VAFB. The construction 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 exceed 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. Both 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. The 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 construction 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 projects 

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 project 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 separately 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, except 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 associated 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 understands 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 

engines 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 dispensing 
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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 we are looking into it.
Santa Barbara County APCD, Reg. II, Rule 333

Comments and Responses 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 this 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 Section 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 provision 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 concern 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 approved 

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, 

does 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-road 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, compliance 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 version 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 

proposed 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

2020 

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 -0.0043
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 2, 07/02/2008

Truncated 2002 Baseline Inventory Data1

 

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 Measure 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 Engine 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 REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 7, 07/02/2008

SUMMARIZED EMISSIONS DATA

Table 1. EMISSION REDUCTIONS1

SOURCE AND EQUIPMENT 

DESCRIPTION

STATIONARY 

SOURCE No.

FACILITY 

No.

DEVICE 

No.

ESTIMATED EMISSION 

REDUCTIONS 

(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 engine 

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 bhp 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 REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM THE 2008 RULE DEVELOPMENT

Page 8, 07/02/2008

Truncated 2005 Baseline Inventory Data1

 

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 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 REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM 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 REDUCTIONS ESTIMATES FROM 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 BLANK
Santa 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 Indexa

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 $354.00b

 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 Indexa

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 Indexa

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 Indexa

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 Indexa

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 District will charge the “Fee Rate,” which is the CPI-Adjusted Fee rounded down to the 

nearest cent or nearest dollar. The APCD revised the fees in accordance 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 and 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 for 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 direct 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 which 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 continuous emissions monitoring; 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 according to the Facility/Equipment Description (see Schedule A), 

except where (1) the application is for a source which 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 recover 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 District Rules and Regulations. The fee shall be 

calculated in the same manner as the PTO evaluation fees prescribed in Section I.B.1., with the 

following exceptions: 

 a. The minimum triennial reevaluation fee for 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 Sulfur Compounds, and Particulate Matter from all 

equipment exceeds 25 tons per year, (2) the existing 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. (Cost 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 reevaluation expenses shall be incurred until the 

deposit is received. The fee shall include any expenses for inspection, source testing or plan 

development that is part of the permit reevaluation. Subsequent to the first reevaluation on the 

cost reimbursement basis, all costs for District activities 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 conducting 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 reasonably 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 District 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 revise 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 applicant shall have the right to 

appeal the District's selection 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 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 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 will 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 hearing 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 associated with an appeal if the District 

prevails. If the appellant prevails, the District 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 receipt from the District of the documentary 

evidence supporting the item, the dispute still remains, the applicant or permit 

holder may request an independent 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 discovered 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, within 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 the 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 subject 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 costs for the next ninety (90) days, an 

additional deposit may be required of the applicant or permit holder. The 

District's request for an additional deposit shall be in writing and specify the 
Santa 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 refunded, 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 believe 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 with 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 District permit, the fee shall be assessed 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 assessed a fee in accordance with Schedule D. 

E. Other Fees 

 1. Transfer of Ownership 

 An application filed for purposes of transferring 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 facility, 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 Control 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 pursuant 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 pursuant to Rule 335, Section I.2. with the 

delayed compliance date for wooden cooling towers (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 assessed 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 are 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 Executive Board of the District 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 incurred by the County for preparation 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 of 

the 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 located 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 assessed as specified in Sections I.F.2 and I.F.3. 

 2. Basis of Fee 

 a. Fees shall be assessed for stationary sources based on emissions. The emissions shall be 

determined as follows: 

 1) For a stationary source which receives 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 which 
Santa 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 after January 1, 1988, to comply with Rule 

202 exemptions from permit, as revised 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 regulated, but for which permits are not issued by the District 

to recover the costs of District programs related 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 stationary 

source emissions within the District multiplied by the unit fee prescribed in Schedule B1. 

G. Air Toxics Program 

 All stationary sources with a District permit shall 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 assessed 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 permit 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 contaminant 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 submitted within 30 calendar days after receipt of the 

request from the District. 

 2. For stationary sources evaluated under Regulation VIII, the annual fee due for each contaminant 

shall be reduced by the "increment fee" as specified in Regulation VIII paid 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 Protection Program (AAPP) and the California Clean Air Act 
Santa 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 fees are based on emissions and shall be assessed for 

certain stationary sources. 

 AAPP fees shall be assessed for stationary sources with 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 sulfur 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 dollars per ton specified for each fiscal year, as 

determined by the ARB for each of the two programs. 

 To cover District costs for the collection 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 assessed for asbestos demolition and renovation operations subject to the 

notification provisions of District Regulation X, Rule 1001, National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants. The fee shall be assessed in accordance with Schedule E and shall be paid by the asbestos 

demolition and renovation contractor at the time an asbestos demolition 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 Schedule F shall be assessed to the equipment owner or 

operator to determine the eligibility for exemption. 

 III. OTHER COST REIMBURSEMENT ACTIVITIES 

A. Monitoring Fee 

 The owner/operator of a stationary source shall pay all District costs associated with installation, operation, 

maintenance of equipment, and the review, transmittal, storage, and evaluation of data for ambient and 

continuous emission monitoring activities 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 holder 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 conditions. 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 activities 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, identified 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 stationary 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 environmental 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 variance, shall pay a filing fee as specified 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 specified 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 the 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 proceeding 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 those 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 Hearing Board determines the appellant has prevailed 

on the appeal. 

 Notwithstanding any fees assessed for evaluating or reevaluating 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 violation 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 implementation 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 request 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 hearing is filed or within thirty calendar (30) days of 

the hearing date if a hearing is held. These fees do not preclude fines collected 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 invoice 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 sixty (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 revoke the permit. For fees mandated by Health 

and Safety Code Section 44300 et. seq., the penalty shall not exceed 100% of the fee. 

 3. Payment of Deposits and Fees Based on Cost 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 pursuant 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 the District. Furthermore, the 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 the 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 reissue 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 (CPI) for the preceding year, as determined pursuant to 

Section 2212 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. All other 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 the District to recover estimated reasonable costs of all District programs 

related to permitted stationary sources. 

D. Use of Fee Schedules 

 In the event more than one fee schedule 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 the 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 equipment at any one stationary source, and one or more 

of the permits is due for renewal, or an application 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 required 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, notwithstanding 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, equipment 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 included 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 equipment 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 miscellaneous 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, shall be assessed a fee based on the total rated motor 

horsepower of each motor included in any such equipment, 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 exception of incinerators which are covered in Schedule 

4, shall be assessed a fee based upon the maximum design 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 = $4,015.00 
Santa 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 with 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 fee based on the maximum cross sectional area of the 

combustion chamber(s), in accordance with the following formula: 

 Fee = $50 times (X), (rounded to nearest dollar) 

 Where "X" is the total horizontal inside cross-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 volumetric 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 using 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 storage tanks, in accordance with 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 Phase II vapor recovery dispensing 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 pile 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 Reactive 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 emissions 

 
Santa 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 Reactive Organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen (expressed as 

nitrogen dioxide), Gaseous Sulfur Compounds (expressed 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 Reactive Organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen (expressed as 

nitrogen dioxide), Gaseous Sulfur Compounds (expressed as sulfur dioxide), and Particulate Matter. 
Santa Barbara County APCD Rule 210 210 - 23 March 17, 2005 

SCHEDULE C 

 FEES FOR REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND EVALUATION 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 metals. 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 for asbestos demolition/renovation 

operations subject to District Regulation X., Rule 1001, Subpart 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 $975 
Santa 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 Operate reevaluation fee (except for motor vehicle fueling facilities) - $250. 

3. Annual Permit to Operate reevaluation fee for motor vehicle fueling facilities equipped with Phase II vapor 

recovery nozzles - $14 per nozzle. 

4. Additional reinspection fee for Phase II motor vehicle 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 (AAPP) 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 Permit 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 length of the variance is greater than three (3) 

month, the petitioner shall pay an additional fee of $275 for each month or portion 

thereof over three (3) months that 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 hearing 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 are 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 improve 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 cable-laying and pipelaying 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