1 

## Comments and Responses

Rule 3.22 Internal Combustion Engines

Written Comments

EPA Staff Comments – March 6, 2009 :

Comment #1

The definition of Maintenance and Testing in Section C.5 should be amended to begin with the phrase “Period of time during which”.

Response #1 FRAQMD staff accepts this change to make the defini tion more clear.

Comment #2

We recommend that the emission limits in Table 2 of Section D be required of sources throughout FRAQMD, not just in the portion of the D istrict which is in non-attainment

for ozone.

Response #2 FRAQMD staff has reviewed the emission limitation f or North FRAQMD. It was

determined that the lower emission limits recommend ed by EPA would put an extreme burden on the businesses currently operating in the north. FRAQMD will keep the proposed emissions limit because it provides a reas onable level of attainment without over-regulating the businesses.

Staff will consider revising the emission limitatio ns once other Districts in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin decide to lower their e mission limits as well. There is no current timeline for this change. However, the Dist ricts are in constant communication and are working together to promote consistency in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

Comment #3

Please remove the terms RACT and BARCT in Section D when referring to the different

emission limits in the rule.

Response #3 FRAQMD staff accepts this change because the limita tions of RACT and BARCT will change over time. Hence, rule revision would not be necessary if/when the RACT and BARCT limitations change.2

Comment #4 To facilitate compliance determinations, we recomme nd amending Section G.1 to require that all records be maintained for 5 years.

Response #4 FRAQMD staff accepts this change because the engine requires a source test once every five years. Hence, staff would always be able to ch eck the previous source test for an engine.

ARB Staff Comments – March 26, 2009 :

Comment #5

Section B.1.b : This section defines emergency standby engines a s those “whose hours for maintenance and testing purposes do not exceed 100 hours as determined by a

nonresettable hour meter.”

For clarity, we recommend that the District define the period of time for the operating

hour restriction. ARB staff assumes the 100-hour l imit is on an annual basis. Therefore, the District should modify the Section to read as f ollows:

“whose annual hours for maintenance and testing purposes do not exceed 100

hours as determined by a nonresettable hour meter.”

Response #5 FRAQMD staff accepts this change to make the time r equirement more clear.

Comment #6

Section D.1.a : This section establishes NOx, VOC, and CO emissi on limits for spark ignited rich burn, spark ignited lean burn, and com pression ignited engines. The emission limits are classified as equivalent to rea sonably available control technology (RACT).

California Health and Safety Code Section 41503(b) requires that control measures for the same emission sources be uniform throughout the air basin. We reviewed the stationary engine rules for other air districts in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management Dist rict Rule 412, contains more stringent RACT-level NOx limits for spark ignited r ich burn and spark ignited lean burn engines at 50 ppmvd at 15% O 2 and 125 ppmvd at 15% O 2 , respectively (compared to the District’s proposed 90 ppmvd at 15% O 2 and 150 ppmvd at 15% O 2 limits). It is our understanding that the District considered the more stringent NOx limits but did not ultimately propose these emission levels due to eco nomic hardship considerations for the affected sources; however the proposed limits will still require about 60 percent of currently uncontrolled engines in the District to i nstall emission controls. It is also ARB staff’s understanding that the District is currentl y participating in planning efforts3

involving the other air districts in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin that will ultimately develop more stringent, unified standards for stati onary engines. During this process,

ARB staff recommends that the District reevaluate t he feasibility of adopting NOx emission levels at least as stringent as the Sacram ento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

Response #6

FRAQMD staff has reviewed the emission limitation f or North FRAQMD. It was

determined that the lower emission limits recommend ed by EPA would put an extreme burden on the businesses currently operating in the north. FRAQMD will keep the proposed emissions limit because it provides a reas onable level of attainment without over-regulating the businesses.

Staff will consider revising the emission limitatio ns once other Districts in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin decide to lower their e mission limits as well. There is no current timeline for this change. However, the Dist ricts are in constant communication and are working together to promote consistency in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.

EPA Staff Comments – May 14, 2009 :

Comment #7 Please remove the broad exemption for agricultural engines in Section B.1. e. Ideally, the rule should specify appropriate requirements for ag ricultural engines. At a minimum, rule language should indicate that only agricultura l engines smaller than the major source threshold are exempt from the Rule.

Response #7 FRAQMD staff accepts this change to be more consist ent with the SB700 requirements regarding agricultural sources of air pollution. Th e exemption will be changed to the following:

“Engines used directly and exclusively for the grow ing of crops or the raising of animals. This exemption does not apply to any engine used at an agricultural source of air pollution that emits in any 12-month period air emi ssions greater than or equal the major source thresholds for regulated air pollutants and/ or HAPs.”

Comment #8

Section F.1.b should specify what other certification methods ar e acceptable for initial compliance demonstration. For methods approved on a case-by-case basis, please revise the rule to clarify that EPA and ARB must approve t he method in addition to the APCO.4

Response #8 FRAQMD staff is concerned about requiring a source test for all these engines. There are numerous other verification methods to prove that t he engine is in compliance with the rule without requiring a source test. FRAQMD is wil ling to accept previous source test results as sufficient data to show compliance. FRAQ MD is also willing to accept engine

manufacturer and/or control device certifications i f they’re still within the certified time frame (most of which are 8,000 hours of engine oper ation). FRAQMD believes that it would be too confusing to have these options stated specifically in the rule.

The language for this section was revised as follow ed:

“Initial compliance can be achieved by:

a. Conducting a source test on a unit, or;

b. Providing the District with support documentation w hich demonstrates that the engine is in compliance with the emission limit s of this Rule.”

Comment #9

Section F.3.a should specify a deadline for ongoing compliance d emonstration instead of having the APCO determine it on a case-by-case basi s.

Response #9 The language for this section was revised as follow ed:

“If initial compliance was satisfied without any so urce test data, the unit shall be source tested no later than five (5) years after the date of initial startup.”

This change removes the vagueness associated with t he case-by-case basis.

Comment #10

Section F.3.b should include a provision requiring reporting of uncorrected exceedances

to the District.

Response #10 FRAQMD staff accepts this change. By writing this r eporting requirement in the rule, the facility will know how to handle an uncorrected exc eedance.

Comment #11 The term "normal operations" in section G.1.f should be defined.

Response #11 FRAQMD staff does not believe normal operations nee ds to be defined. No changes will

be made.5

ARB Staff Comments – May 21, 2009 :

No comments.

Public Comments – May 21, 2009 :

Public comments were due on May 18. No comments wer e received.