Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for California- -San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 Standards

[Federal Register: February 4, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 23)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5411-5431]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04fe04-34]
[[Page 5412]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 294-0432, FRL-7617-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for California-
-San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for
Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10
Microns and Smaller,'' submitted on August 19, 2003, and Amendments to
that plan submitted on December 30, 2003, as meeting the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act) requirements applicable to the San Joaquin Valley,
California PM-10 nonattainment area (SJV). The SJV violates the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
of ten microns or less (PM-10) and is classified as a serious PM-10
nonattainment area.
As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, the State must submit to EPA
a plan that provides for, among other things, the implementation of
best available control measures (BACM). In addition, because the
serious area attainment deadline, December 31, 2001, has passed, the
plan must provide for expeditious attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS and for
an annual reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursors emissions of not less
than five percent until attainment.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by March 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105.
Comments may also be submitted electronically to lo.doris@epa.gov or
through hand delivery/courier.
A copy of the docket is available for public inspection at EPA's
Region 9 at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105,
office during normal business hours.

Electronic Availability

This rulemaking and the TSD for this rulemaking are available as
electronic files on EPA's Region 9 Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), U.S.
EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105.
(415) 972-3959, e-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Proposal
II. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the SJV Area
III. Overview of the CAA's Planning Requirements for the SJV Serious
PM-10 Nonattainment Area
A. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
B. Emissions Inventories
C. Best Available Control Measures for Sources of PM-10
D. Reasonably Available Control Measures for Sources of PM-10
E. Major Stationary Sources of PM-10 Precursors
F. Section 189(d) Attainment Demonstration and 5% Requirement
G. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones
IV. The 2003 PM-10 Plan's Compliance with the CAA's Requirements
A. Overview of the Plan's NO_X/PM Attainment Strategy
B. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-10 in the Emissions
Budgets
2. Adequacy of the Plan's Budgets
3. Trading Mechanism
C. Emissions Inventories
D. Implementation of Reasonably and Best Available Control
Measures
1. Steps 1 and 2: Determining Significant Sources of PM-10 and
PM-10 Precursors
2. Steps 3 and 4: BACM for NO_X and PM-10 Significant
Source Categories
a. State Sources
b. District Sources
(1) Agricultural Irrigation Internal Combustion Engines
(2) Charbroiling
(3) Cotton Gins
(4) Internal Combustion Engines, Stationary
(5) Fugitive Dust
(i) Agricultural Conservation Management Practice Program
(ii) Regulation VIII Sources
(6) Glass Manufacturing
(7) Manufacturing and Industrial Fuel Combustion
(8) Natural Gas Boilers
(9) Natural Gas Fired Oilfield Steam Generators
(10) Oil Drilling and Workover
(11) Open Burning
(12) Prescribed Burning
(13) Residential Space Heating
(14) Residential Water Heaters
(15) Residential Wood Combustion
(16) Service and Commercial-Other Fuel Combustion
(17) Solid-Fuel Boiler, Steam Generators and Process Heaters
(18) Stationary Gas Turbines
E. VOC and SO_X Sources
1. Oil and Gas Fugitives from Crude Oil and Gas Production and
Natural Gas Processing Facilities
2. Oil and Gas Fugitives from Petroleum Refineries and Chemical
Plants
3. Can and Coil Coatings
4. Agricultural Conservation Management Practice Program
5. Dryers
6. Gas-Fired Oilfield Steam Generators
7. Glass Manufacturing
8. Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters
9. Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well Vents
10. Wineries
F. Attainment Demonstration
1. Modeling Used for the Attainment Demonstration
2. Attainment Date
3. Enforceable Commitments for Future Control Measures
a. Indirect Source Mitigation Program
b. Commitment to Achieve Additional PM-10 and NO_X
Reductions in 2010
c. Summary of Commitments to Adopt and Implement Control
Measures in the 2003 PM-10 Plan
d. Approvability of Enforceable Commitments
(1) The Commitments Address a Limited Portion of the 2003 PM-10
Plan
(2) The State and District Are Capable of Fulfilling their
Commitment
(3) The Commitments Are for a Reasonable and Appropriate Period
of Time
4. Enforceable Commitment for a Mid-Course Review
5. Summary of Attainment Demonstration
G. Section 189(d) 5% Requirement
H. Reasonable Further Progress
1. Annual RFP Demonstration
2. 24-hour RFP Demonstration
I. Quantitative Milestones
V. Summary of Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Proposal

EPA is proposing to approve the ``2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 10
Microns and Smaller,'' submitted by the State of California to EPA on
August 19, 2003, and Amendments to that plan submitted on December 30,
2003,\1\ as meeting the CAA's requirements for serious PM-10
nonattainment areas, including the requirements of CAA section 189(d)
for serious areas that have failed to meet their attainment dates.
Specifically, we are proposing to approve the following elements of the
Plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Amendments to the 2003 PM-10 Plan supersede some
portions of the 2003 PM-10 Plan and also add to it. References
hereafter to the ``SJV 2003 PM-10 Plan'' or ``the Plan'' mean the
2003 Plan submitted on August 19, 2003, as amended by the December
30, 2003, submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

? Motor vehicle budgets for transportation
conformity;
? Emissions inventories for PM-10 and PM-10
precursors;

[[Page 5413]]

? A demonstration that reasonably available and
best available control measures (RACM and BACM) will be expeditiously
implemented for all significant sources of PM-10 and PM-10 precursors;
? A demonstration that attainment will be achieved
as expeditiously as practicable;
? A demonstration that the CAA section 189(d) five
percent requirement is met; and
? A demonstration that reasonable further progress
(RFP) and quantitative milestones will be achieved.
Final action approving the RACM/BACM demonstration for fugitive
dust sources regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJVUAPCD or District) Regulation VIII would terminate
all sanction, Federal implementation plan (FIP) and rule disapproval
implications of our February 26, 2003, action on Regulation VIII. 68 FR
8830.
We describe our proposed actions and provide an evaluation of the
Plan and Plan Amendments below. Additional details of our evaluation
may be found in the technical support document (TSD) for this proposed
rule (``EPA's Technical Support Document for the San Joaquin Valley,
California, 2003 PM-10 Plan and 2003 PM-10 Plan Amendments,'' January
27, 2004). A copy of the TSD can be downloaded from our Web site or
obtained by e-mailing, calling or writing the contact person listed
above.

II. PM-10 Air Quality Planning in the SJV Area

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to address, among other
things, continued nonattainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.\2\ Pub. L. 549, 104
Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q (1991). On the date of
enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, PM-10 areas including
the SJV, meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the
amended Act, were designated nonattainment by operation of law. See 56
FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). EPA codified the boundaries of the SJV
nonattainment area at 40 CFR 81.305.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ EPA revised the NAAQS for PM-10 on July 1, 1987 (52 FR
24672), replacing standards for total suspended particulates with
new standards applying only to particulate matter up to 10 microns
in diameter (PM-10). At that time, EPA established two PM-10
standards. The annual PM-10 standard is attained when the expected
annual arithmetic average of the 24-hour samples, averaged over a
three year period, is equal to or less than 50 micrograms per cubic
meter ([mu]g/m3). The 24-hour PM-10 standard of 150
[mu]g/m3 is attained if samples taken for 24-hour periods
have no more than one expected exceedance per year, averaged over 3
years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
Breathing particulate matter can cause significant health
effects, including an increase in respiratory illness and premature
death.
\3\ The San Joaquin Valley PM-10 nonattainment area includes the
following counties in California's central valley: Fresno, Kern,
Kings, Tulare, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Madera and Merced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once an area is designated nonattainment for PM-10, section 188 of
the CAA outlines the process for classifying the area and establishes
the area's initial attainment deadline. In accordance with section
188(a), at the time of designation, all PM-10 nonattainment areas,
including the SJV, were initially classified as moderate nonattainment.
On December 24, 1991, California submitted a moderate area PM-10 Plan
for the SJV which demonstrated that the area could not attain the PM-10
NAAQS by the moderate area attainment date, December 31, 1994. EPA has
not acted on any portion of the moderate area plan.
Section 188(b)(1) of the Act provides that moderate areas can
subsequently be reclassified as serious before the applicable moderate
area attainment date if at any time EPA determines that the area cannot
``practicably'' attain the PM-10 NAAQS by that deadline. On January 8,
1993 (58 FR 3337), EPA made such a determination and reclassified the
SJV as serious.
As a serious nonattainment area, the attainment deadline for the
SJV is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31,
2001. CAA section 188(c)(2). Section 189(b)(2) of the Act required that
the State submit state implementation plan (SIP) revisions for the SJV
addressing CAA section 189(b) and (c) by August 8, 1994, and February
8, 1997. The State made these required serious area submittals but
withdrew them on February 26, 2002. As a result, on February 28, 2002,
EPA made a finding of failure to submit (67 FR 11925).
On July 23, 2002, EPA found that the SJV failed to attain the
annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards by December 31, 2001 (67 FR 48039).
For serious areas failing to meet their applicable attainment
deadlines, section 189(d) of the CAA requires states to ``submit within
12 months after the applicable attainment date, plan revisions which
provide for attainment of the PM-10 air quality standards and, from the
date of such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction of
PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5
percent of the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent
inventory prepared for the area.'' \4\ On March 7, 2003, EPA made a
finding of failure to submit the 5% attainment plan for the San Joaquin
Valley which was due on December 31, 2002 (68 FR 13840).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The section 189(d) requirements are also referred to
hereafter as the ``5% attainment plan,'' or the ``section 189(d) 5%
requirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On August 19, 2003, California submitted the ``2003 PM10 Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards for Particulate Matter
10 Microns and Smaller.'' On December 30, 2003, California submitted
the Amendment to the 2003 PM-10 Plan. California and the SJVUAPCD
developed and adopted these SIP revisions in order to address the CAA
requirements in section 189(b)-(d).
On August 22, 2003, EPA found the 2003 PM-10 Plan complete (August
22, 2003, letter from Jack P. Broadbent to Catherine Witherspoon)
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. On
January 9, 2004, EPA found the Amendments to the 2003 PM-10 Plan
complete (January 9, 2004, letter from Deborah Jordan to Catherine
Witherspoon, California Air Resources Board) pursuant to CAA section
110(k)(1)(B) and 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

III. Overview of the CAA's Planning Requirements for the SJV Serious
PM-10 Nonattainment Area

The SJV is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area that has failed to
meet the applicable attainment date, December 31, 2001. Such areas are
subject to CAA section 189(d) which, as discussed above, requires the
submittal, within 12 months of the applicable attainment date, of an
attainment plan which provides for a 5% annual reduction of PM-10 or
PM-10 precursors. In addition, the SJV must address all of the relevant
CAA requirements for moderate and serious areas that have not been
previously addressed.
The requirements for moderate and serious PM-10 nonattainment areas
are found in section 189 of the CAA, and the general planning and
control requirements for nonattainment plans are found in CAA sections
110 and 172. EPA has issued a General Preamble \5\ and Addendum to the
General Preamble \6\ describing our preliminary

[[Page 5414]]

views on how the Agency intends to review SIPs submitted to meet the
CAA's requirements for PM-10 plans. The General Preamble mainly
addresses the requirements for moderate areas and the Addendum, the
requirements for serious areas. EPA has also issued other guidance
documents related to PM-10 plans which are cited as necessary when EPA
discusses the details of the 2003 PM-10 Plan below. In addition, EPA is
addressing the adequacy of the motor vehicle budgets for transportation
conformity (CAA section 176(c)) in this proposed plan approval. The PM-
10 plan requirements addressed by this proposed approval for the SJV
are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
\6\ ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. Our conformity rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart T and part
93, subpart A) requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Once a SIP that contains motor
vehicle emissions budgets has been submitted to EPA, and EPA has found
it adequate, these budgets are used for determining conformity:
emissions from planned transportation activities must be less than or
equal to the budgets.

B. Emissions Inventories

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that an attainment plan include a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutants.

C. Best Available Control Measures for Sources of PM-10

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires provisions to assure that best
available control measures (BACM), including the best available control
technology (BACT) for stationary sources, for the control of PM-10
shall be implemented no later than 4 years after the date a
nonattainment area is reclassified as serious.

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures for Sources of PM-10

When a moderate area is reclassified to serious, the requirements
to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM), including
such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available
control technology (RACT), in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)
remain. Thus, a serious area PM-10 plan must also provide for the
implementation of RACM and RACT to the extent that the RACM and RACT
requirements have not been satisfied in the area's moderate area plan.

E. Major Stationary Sources of PM-10 Precursors

CAA section 189(e) requires that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-10 shall also apply to major stationary
sources of PM-10 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the standards in the area.

F. Section 189(d) Attainment Demonstration and 5% Requirement

For areas which do not attain the PM-10 standards by the applicable
attainment date, CAA section 189(d) requires the submittal of plan
revisions which provide for attainment (attainment demonstration) and
an annual 5% reduction in PM-10 or PM-10 precursors. These plan
revisions must be submitted within 12 months of the applicable
attainment date.
The attainment deadline applicable to an area that misses the
serious area attainment date is as soon as practicable, but no later
than 5 years from the publication date of the nonattainment finding
notice. EPA may, however, extend the attainment deadline to the extent
it deems appropriate for a period no greater than 10 years from the
publication date, ``considering the severity of nonattainment and the
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.'' CAA
sections 179(d)(3) and 189(d).

G. Reasonable Further Progress and Quantitative Milestones

CAA sections 172(c)(2) requires the plan to demonstrate RFP as
defined in section 171(1). Section 189(c)(1) requires the plan to
contain quantitative milestones which will be achieved every 3 years
and which will demonstrate that RFP is being met.

IV. The 2003 PM-10 Plan's Compliance With the CAA's Requirements

An evaluation of the 2003 PM-10 Plan against the CAA requirements
is provided below. Additional information may be found in the TSD for
this proposed plan approval.

A. Overview of the Plan's NO_X/PM Attainment Strategy

The 2003 PM-10 Plan relies on reductions from sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NO_X), a PM-10 precursor, and directly emitted PM-
10 sources to achieve attainment (``NO_X/PM strategy'').
Other PM-10 precursors for the SJV include volatile organic compounds
(VOC), oxides of sulfate (SO_X) and ammonia (NH₃).
The California Air Resources Board (CARB or the State) and SJVUAPCD
have examined the effects of controlling VOC, SO_X and
NH₃ and have determined that additional VOC controls will
not lead to PM-10 reductions throughout the SJV, that the
SO_X inventory is too small to have an appreciable impact on
PM-10 reductions, and that there is too much uncertainty regarding the
effects of ammonia controls. (See pages ES-15, ES-16 and 7-3 of the
2003 PM-10 Plan.) Thus, the State and District believe that the
NO_X/PM strategy is currently the most effective and
expeditious strategy for attaining the PM-10 standards in the SJV.
Additional technical information from the California Regional PM-10/PM-
2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) is expected in 2005. The District has
made an enforceable commitment, discussed further below, to re-evaluate
the 2003 PM-10 Plan with the results of CRPAQS and to submit a new plan
to EPA by March 2006. In the absence of the CRPAQS results, EPA concurs
with the 2003 PM-10 Plan's NO_X/PM strategy. Therefore, for
the purposes of 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) we are proposing to determine
that sources of the PM-10 precursors, VOC, SO_X and
NH₃, do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which
exceed the standard in the SJV.

B. Transportation Conformity and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

One of the primary tests for conformity is to show that
transportation plans and improvement programs will not result in motor
vehicle emissions greater than the levels needed to make progress
toward and to meet the air quality standards. The motor vehicle
emissions levels needed to make progress toward and to meet the air
quality standards are set in the area's applicable SIP and are known as
the ``motor vehicle emissions budgets.'' Emissions budgets are
established for specific years and specific pollutants and precursors.
See 40 CFR 93.118(a).
Before an emissions budget in a submitted SIP revision may be used
in a conformity determination, we must

[[Page 5415]]

first determine that it is adequate. The criteria by which we determine
whether a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
We have described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted
SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999, memo titled ``Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court
Decision'') and in our proposed rule of June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38974).
Applicability of emission trading between conformity budgets for
conformity purposes in described in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
EPA must positively affirm that the budgets contained in the SIP
are adequate before budgets can be used for transportation conformity.
Once adequate budgets are established, transportation plans will then
need to conform with those budgets. The determination of whether
transportation plans conform to SIPs is outside the scope of this
rulemaking. This rulemaking does, however, address whether the budgets
found in the 2003 PM-10 Plan are adequate and approvable.
1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM-10 in the Emissions Budgets
CARB's mobile source emission model, EMFAC2002, was used to
estimate direct PM-10 and NO_X emissions from motor vehicles
in the 2003 PM-10 SIP. EMFAC2002 was approved by EPA on April 1, 2003
(FR 6815722), for use in SIPs and conformity analyses. EMFAC2002
produces emissions for a wide range of motor vehicles (passenger cars,
eight different classes of trucks, motorcycles, buses and motor homes)
for calendar years out to 2040. Particulate emissions include tire and
brake wear as well vehicle exhaust and evaporative emissions.
The methodology used in the 2003 PM-10 SIP to estimate fugitive
dust (e.g. paved and unpaved road emissions) is consistent with EPA's
AP-42 (5th Revision, 1995) model for estimating paved road dust
emissions. However, California-specific inputs to the AP-42 equation,
such as silt loading and vehicle weight, have been incorporated. A
rainfall correction factor, as provided in EPA's latest version of the
AP-42 methodology has also been incorporated into the methodology.
Reference documents to the 2003 PM-10 Plan that contain details
regarding the methodology are R1: Detailed Annual Emissions Inventories
and R2: Detailed Seasonal Emissions Inventories (2003 PM-10 Plan,
reference documents on cd-rom). For unpaved roads, a California
specific emission factor has been developed from unpaved road emission
tests performed primarily in the SJV and is approximately 2 lbs. PM-10/
VMT.
CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.112(a)(1) require that SIP
inventories be based on the most current and applicable models that are
available at the time the SIP is developed. CAA section 176(c)(1)
requires that the latest emissions estimates be used in conformity
analyses. EPA approves models that fulfill these requirements. We are
proposing to approve the methodologies used in the 2003 PM-10 Plan to
calculate PM-10 emissions from paved and unpaved roads for the 2003 PM-
10 Plan and also for use in future transportation conformity
determinations in the SJV.
2. Adequacy of the Plan's Budgets
The 2003 PM-10 Plan includes county by county subarea motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2005, 2008 and 2010 for direct PM-10 and
NO_X. The budgets are summarized in Table 3-2 of the Plan,
``Motor Vehicle Emission Subarea Budgets, (tons per average annual
day)'' and below. The direct PM-10 budgets include emissions of
reentrained dust from motor vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads,
vehicular exhaust, vehicle brake and tire wear, and emissions from
highway and transit project construction. The emissions budgets for
NO_X include only vehicular exhaust. Since the 2003 PM-10
Plan does not consider VOC to be a significant contributor to the PM-10
nonattainment problem, in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii), no
VOC budgets are included. Additional details regarding the budgets are
presented in ``2005 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (tons per average
annual day), Date printed: 7/24/2003; SJV PM Plan Budget Derivations.
xls; SJV PM Budget Derivation, July 8, 2003,'' which is part of the
2003 PM-10 Plan submittal.
On August 27, 2003, EPA announced receipt of the 2003 PM-10 Plan on
the Internet and requested public comment on the Plan's emissions
budgets by September 26, 2003. No comments were received. EPA's
analysis for the 2003 PM-10 Plan's PM-10 and NO_X motor
vehicle budgets is provided in the TSD.
Based on our evaluation of the criteria outlined in section
93.118(e) of the conformity rule, EPA finds the PM-10 and
NO_X motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the 2003
PM-10 Plan (and the table below) adequate and proposes to approve them.
EPA proposes to approve the budgets because they come from a SIP which
EPA concludes demonstrates timely attainment and the budgets are
consistent with all of the control measures assumed in the attainment
demonstration. We also find adequate and propose to approve the
individual county level subarea budgets for NO_X and PM-10,
as shown in the table below, consistent with section 93.124(e), which
allows for a nonattainment area with more than one Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) to establish subarea emission budgets for
each MPO or make a collective conformity determination for the entire
nonattainment area. Note that, if an individual MPO cannot show
conformity to their individual county budget, then the remaining MPOs
in the SJV cannot make any new conformity determinations.\7\ An
adequate or approved motor vehicle emissions budget must be used for
transportation conformity purposes. As mentioned earlier, the county
subarea motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA is proposing to
approve are listed in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ When examined together, section 93.102(b), which requires
conformity determinations in all nonattainment areas, and section
93.109(a), which requires that all of the requirements of the
conformity rule be met, indicate that subareas cannot find
conformity until all subareas conform. Consequently, it is the
interpretation of EPA and the Federal Highway Administration that if
one subarea is unable to demonstrate conformity, the other subareas
cannot determine conformity either. That is, one MPO cannot
determine conformity unless the other subareas included in the
implementation plan are in conformity. The current transportation
improvement program (TIP) and conformity determination for the other
subareas would not lapse immediately and the projects in the current
TIP for these subareas would be allowed to go forward. Those other
subareas simply could not make a new conformity determination until
the subarea that originally lapsed was found to conform.

[[Page 5416]]

Motor Vehicle Emissions Subarea Budgets
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJV 2003 PM-10 Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
County 2005 2008 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PM-10 NOX PM-10 NOX PM-10 NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................ 14.1 42.6 13.3 36.4 16.2 29.7
Kern.......................................... 10.6 38.8 10.7 34.2 10.8 28.4
Kings......................................... 5.6 7.5 5.6 6.5 6.7 5.4
Madera........................................ 4.3 9.9 4.3 9.1 4.5 7.8
Merced........................................ 5.5 15.3 5.2 12.5 5.3 9.9
San Joaquin................................... 9.0 28.9 9.0 23.4 9.2 18.3
Stanislaus.................................... 6.5 22.5 6.1 18.7 6.1 14.9
Tulare........................................ 8.7 23.6 7.9 20.1 8.9 16.4
------------
Total..................................... 64.3 189.1 62.1 160.9 67.7 130.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the request of CARB and based on the SJVUAPCD's commitment to
update the SIP by March 31, 2006, using improved inventories and air
quality modeling,\8\ we are proposing to limit this approval to last
only until the effective date of our adequacy findings for new
replacement budgets. For further discussion of the rationale for, and
the effect of, this limitation, please see our promulgation of a
limitation on motor vehicle emission budgets associated with various
California SIPs, at 67 FR 69139 (November 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See page 2 of the August 19, 2003, letter from Catherine
Witherspoon to Wayne Nastri, transmitting the 2003 PM-10 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Trading Mechanism
Transportation Conformity is demonstrated for each county in the
SJV when emissions for both PM-10 and NO_X are estimated to
be below the motor vehicle emission budgets for each pollutant for all
analysis years before and including 2010. However, for analysis years
beyond 2010, the PM-10 Plan allows emissions to be traded from
NO_X to PM-10 budgets. Section 93.124(c) allows trading among
budgets for the purposes of conformity if there is an approved
mechanism in the SIP to allow trading to take place. The provision in
section 93.124(c) states that:

``[a]
conformity demonstration shall not trade emissions among
budgets which the applicable implementation plan (or implementation
plan submission) allocates for different pollutants or precursors,
or among budgets allocated to motor vehicles and other sources,
unless the implementation plan establishes appropriate mechanisms
for such trades.''

Page 3-16 to 3-17 of the 2003 PM-10 Plan provides a general
discussion of how a trading mechanism could be used for determining
transportation conformity with the plan's budgets after 2010. On
December 30, 2003, the District provided, as part of the 2003 PM-10
Plan Amendment, additional information which provides details on how
the trading mechanism will be implemented (December 18, 2003, letter
from David Crow to Deborah Jordan). The trading mechanism will be
implemented with the following criteria. The trading applies only to:
? Analysis years after the 2010 attainment year.
? On-road mobile emission sources.
? Trades using vehicle NO_X emission
reductions in excess of those needed to meet the NO_X budget
for that county.
? Trades in one direction from NO_X to
direct PM-10.
? A trading ratio of 1.5 tpd NO_X to 1
tpd PM-10.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The 1.5 tpd NO_X to 1 tpd direct PM-10 ratio is
consistent with the attainment modeling supporting the 2003 PM-10
Plan's attainment demonstration. The SJV has made an enforceable
commitment to conduct a mid-course review and to submit a new plan
by March 31, 2006. The new plan will include a new attainment
demonstration and if the NO_X/PM-10 conversion ratio needs
to be adjusted in the attainment demonstration, it must also be
adjusted for the conformity budget trading ratio. See section IV.F.
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

? Transportation conformity determinations in San
Joaquin Valley for purposes of showing conformity to the budgets in the
2003 PM-10 attainment demonstration.
Not allowed are:
? Trading between counties/subarea budgets.
? Trading for any pollutant other than direct PM-
10 and the PM-10 precursor NO_X.
? Trading with sources other than on-road emission
sources.
? Trading that would interfere with meeting the
NO_X budget.
? Use of the mechanism to supplement the
NO_X budget with excess reductions in the direct PM-10
budget.
In practice, in a conformity analysis for years after 2010, an MPO
in the SJV would follow these steps:
? Generate the estimates of NO_X and PM-
10 emissions from the planned transportation network, using procedures
consistent with the conformity rule (40 CFR part 93).
? Compare these estimates to the appropriate SIP
budgets.
? If one or both of the budgets are not met,
identify and evaluate potential control measures that could achieve
additional reductions (e.g., feasibility analysis). This step could
include examination of expanded implementation of control measures
similar to those used in the SIP (e.g., paving unpaved roads) if
included and funded in the Regional Transportation Plan.
? If, after including reductions from additional
measures, the direct PM-10 budget still cannot be met, adjust (i.e.,
increase) the PM-10 subarea budget by trading from the NO_X
budget. This trade from the NO_X subarea budget to the PM-10
subarea budget can only occur if the estimated emissions of
NO_X from the planned transportation network are less than
the NO_X subarea budget. The 1.5 tpd NO_X to 1 tpd
PM-10 ratio would be used, as follows, to determine the NO_X
reductions needed to offset the excess direct PM10 emissions:

(PM-10 estimate - PM-10 budget) * 1.5 = tpd of NO_X
reductions needed to offset excess PM-10

Based on this calculation, the NO_X budget is decreased
and the PM-10 budget is increased for this particular conformity
determination in the subarea. A subarea has demonstrated conformity if,
after trading, the estimates of NO_X and PM-10 emissions from
the planned transportation network are at or below the adjusted
NO_X and direct PM-10 budgets. For each analysis year after
2010, and in

[[Page 5417]]

each subsequent conformity determination, the transportation agency
must repeat these steps to determine whether the budgets can be met, or
whether they need to be adjusted using this trading mechanism. Once the
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has approved a conformity
finding which relied upon the trading mechanism, the transportation
planning agency cannot necessarily rely on that trading scenario for
future conformity findings. The PM-10 and NO_X budgets will
return to the subarea emission budgets in the 2003 PM-10 SIP. Any new
conformity determination would have to repeat the steps identified
above to determine if further trading is appropriate.
EPA believes that the 2003 PM-10 Plan has provided an approvable
trading mechanism for determining transportation conformity after 2010.
EPA is proposing to approve the trading mechanism and all of the
criteria included in the letter submitted as part of the 2003 PM-10
Plan as enforceable components of the program.

C. Emissions Inventories

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires all plan submittals to
include a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources in the nonattainment area. Since the San
Joaquin Valley exceeds both the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards,
representative emission inventories are needed for both standards. The
District chose the year 1999 as the base year for the 2003 PM-10 Plan
since it was the most complete emission inventory available. This base
year inventory meets the CAA requirement for a comprehensive, accurate
and current inventory and is used as the basis for forecasting future
year inventories and for developing average annual, seasonal and
modeling inventories. (See Chapter 3, 2003 PM-10 Plan.)
The 2003 PM-10 Plan's average annual inventory represents the
emissions on an average day in a year and is based on the SJV's yearly
emissions. The average annual inventory is used to evaluate the annual
PM-10 problem.
The 2003 PM-10 Plan also include seasonal inventories for fall and
winter. The seasonal inventories were developed to evaluate the 24-hour
PM-10 problem.
EPA is proposing to approve the inventories in the 2003 PM-10 Plan
as meeting the CAA 172(c)(3) requirement. A more detailed discussion of
the Plan's inventories can be found in the TSD.

D. Implementation of Reasonably and Best Available Control Measures

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires serious area PM-10 plans to
provide for the implementation of BACM, including BACT, within four
years of reclassification to serious.\10\ For the SJV, this date was
January 8, 1997. Since that date has passed, BACM must now be
implemented as expeditiously as practicable. Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d
687 (9th Cir. 1990). The General Preamble and Addendum provide EPA's
preliminary guidance on how to determine what is a BACM level of
control. The Addendum provides the following guidance in discussing
BACM:
? BACM is considered to be a higher level of
control than RACM \11\ and is defined as being, among other things, the
maximum degree of emissions reduction achievable from a source or
source category which is determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering energy, economic and environmental impacts. Addendum at
42010, 42013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ As with RACM and RACT, BACT is a subset of the overarching
BACM requirement. BACT generally refers to the technological control
measures which apply to stationary sources. Addendum at 42008 to
42009.
\11\ CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires implementation of RACM
for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. As noted above, a serious
area PM-10 plan must also provide for the implementation of RACM to
the extent that the RACM requirement has not been satisfied in the
area's moderate area plan.
However, we do not normally conduct a separate evaluation to
determine if a serious area plan's measures meet the RACM as well as
BACM requirements as interpreted by us in the General Preamble at
13540. This is because in our serious area guidance (Addendum at
42010), we interpret the BACM requirement as generally subsuming the
RACM requirement (i.e., if we determine that the measures are indeed
the ``best available,'' we have necessarily concluded that they are
``reasonably available''). Consequently, our proposed approval of
the 2003 PM-10 Plan's provisions relating to the implementation of
BACM also constitutes a proposed finding that the Plan provides for
the implementation of RACM and references to BACM in the discussion
of the 2003 PM-10 Plan below are intended to include RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

? BACM should emphasize prevention rather than
remediation (e.g., preventing track out at construction sites rather
than simply requiring clean up of tracked out dirt). Addendum at 42011,
42013.
? BACM must be implemented for all categories of
sources in serious areas unless the State adequately demonstrates that
a particular source category does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the PM-10 standards. A source category is presumed to
contribute significantly to a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS if its PM-
10 impact at the location of the expected violation would exceed 5
[mu]g/m\3\. Likewise, a source category will be presumed to contribute
to a violation of the annual NAAQS if its PM-10 impact at the time and
location of the expected violation would exceed 1 [mu]g/m\3\. Addendum
at 42011, 42012.
? In contrast to RACM, BACM determinations are to
be based more on the feasibility of implementing measures rather than
on an analysis of the area's attainment needs. Addendum at 42012.
The Addendum then discusses the following steps for determining
BACM. Addendum at 42012-42014.
? Inventory the sources of PM-10 and PM-10
precursors.
? Determine which source categories are
significant by modeling their impacts on the 24-hour and annual PM-10
standard.
? Evaluate alternative control techniques and
their technological feasibility.
? Evaluate the costs of control measures or their
economic feasibility.

Once these analyses are complete, the BACM must be turned into an
enforceable rule or commitment to ensure BACM implementation. We use
these steps as guidelines in our evaluation of the 2003 PM-10 Plan
below. Finally, the Addendum provides examples of determining BACM and
also discusses the selection of BACT for stationary
sources.12,13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ CAA sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) require BACT for
stationary sources of PM-10 and PM-10 precursors. BACT is determined
on a case-by-case basis and should reflect ``* * * the maximum
degree of emission reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation
(PM-10 and/or PM-10 precursors), taking into account energy,
environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. * * *''
Addendum at 42014.
\13\ Additional discussion on BACM implementation is provided in
EPA's proposed rule for the Maricopa County PM-10 Nonattainment Area
Serious Area Plan for Atttainment of the 24-Hour PM-10 Standard. 66
FR 50252, 50281 (October 2, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Steps 1 and 2: Determining Significant Sources of PM-10 and PM-10
Precursors
The first step in determining BACM is to develop a detailed
emissions inventory of source categories for PM-10 and PM-10 precursors
that can be used with modeling to determine which categories have a
significant impact on the ambient PM-10 levels. The second step is to
use modeling to identify those source categories having a greater than
de minimis impact on PM-10 concentrations. Addendum at 42012.
The development of the detailed emissions inventory of source
categories for PM-10 and PM-10 precursors is discussed in a section
IV.C. above. The

[[Page 5418]]

District used receptor modeling to determine the contribution levels
(in [mu]g/m3) from PM-10 and NO_X sources on the
worst exceedance days for both the annual and 24-hour PM-10
standards.14,15 The District then compared the emissions
(tons) to the contribution levels ([mu]g/m3) for both the
annual and 24-hour PM-10 and NO_X emissions (tons) on a
county by county basis. The District did the comparisons on a county by
county basis because they believe that localized emissions are more
important because most of the worst PM-10 exceedances occur on stagnant
days. The county by county approach also ensures a more stringent de
minimis level since county emissions are lower than Valley-wide
emissions. The purpose of the comparisons was to determine the tons of
PM-10 and NO_X that contribute to 1 [mu]g/m3 for
the annual standard and 5 [mu]g/m3 for the 24-hour standard
on a county by county basis. The lowest PM-10 and NO_X
tonnage values between both the annual and 24-hour values were then
selected as the de minimis levels. (See SJV PM-10 Plan, pages 4-14 to
4-15 and Appendix G, pages G-4 to G-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ The 2003 PM-10 Plan addresses de minimis levels for VOC,
SO_X and NH₃; however, since we are concurring
with the District's NO_X/PM strategy, an analysis of the
significant source categories for VOC, SO_X and
NH₃ is not necessary and is not addressed further in
connection with BACM. See discussion in section IV.A. above.
\15\ The CRPAQS program as well as the routine PM-10 monitoring
network provided the necessary information on contribution levels
from PM-10 and NO_X. 2003 PM-10 Plan, Appendix G, page G-
6. The Plan also includes dispersion modeling; however, the
dispersion modeling is not refined enough to calculate de minimis
levels for PM-10 and PM-10 precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The result of the de minimis analysis is the list of significant
source categories found in Table G-9 of Appendix G of the 2003 PM-10
Plan. The CAA requires the expeditious implementation of BACM
demonstration for all significant source categories. Each of the
significant source categories is discussed below.
2. Steps 3 and 4: BACM for NO_X and PM-10 Significant Source
Categories
The third and fourth steps involve determining the technical and
economic feasibility of potential control measures for each of the
significant source categories. Once BACM are identified, they must be
implemented as expeditiously as practicable through an enforceable rule
or commitment. A discussion of BACM for each of the significant PM-10
and NO_X source categories identified in the 2003 PM-10 Plan
follows. EPA is proposing to find that the commitments and rules for
the significant source categories below meet the RACM/BACM requirements
of CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(B).
a. State Sources. The 2003 PM-10 Plan lists several significant
source categories as being under State authority (2003 PM-10 Plan, page
4-17, Table 4-7). The State of California has unique authority under
the Clean Air Act to adopt regulations to control emissions from new
motor vehicles and engines and from nonroad engines, except for
locomotives and engines used in farm and construction equipment which
are less than 175 horsepower. CAA sections 209(b)(1) and 209(e)(2). In
order for California to adopt such regulations, however, several
determinations must be made, including a determination that the
standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective of public
health and welfare as applicable Federal standards (CAA sections 209(b)
and (e)). Following granting of a waiver, compliance with the State new
motor vehicle or engine standards is treated as compliance with
applicable Federal standards (CAA section 209(b)(3)). Absent a waiver,
the corresponding Federal mobile source standards apply.
In exercising its special authority under CAA section 209,
California has over the past 30 years adopted increasingly stringent
emissions standards for those mobile source categories that are not
federally preempted, keeping pace with the development of advanced
control technologies and cleaner fuels. In recent years, these
adoptions have included the following measures:
(1) California Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Standards, adopted 4/23/
98--http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2004/2004.htm;
(2) Large Off-Road Engine Regulations adopted 10/22/98--
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lore/lore.htm;
(3) Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) 2 and CAP 2000 California Exhaust
and Evaporative Emissions Standards, adopted 11/5/98--
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/levii/levii.htm;
(4) 1997 and Later Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines
Standards, adopted 12/10/98--
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/recreat/recreat.htm;
(5) Exhaust Emission Standards for On-Road Motorcycles, adopted 12/
10/98--http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/motorcyc/motorcyc.htm;
(6) Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines Standards, adopted 1/27/
00--http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ciengine/ciengine.htm;
(7) Transit Bus Standards, adopted 1/27/00 and revised 10/24/02--
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/bus/bus.htm and
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/bus02/bus02.htm;
(8) Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later, adopted
10/25/01--http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/HDDE2007/HDDE2007.htm;
(9) Spark-Ignition Inboard and Sterndrive Marine Engines, adopted
7/26/01--http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine01/marine01.htm;
(10) On-Board Diagnostic II Regulations, adopted 4/25/02--
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/obd02.htm; and
(11) LEV II 2002 Heavy-Duty Otto Cycle Engine Standards, adopted
11/14/02--http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/hevhdg02/levhdg02.htm.
Many of the State's regulations have features that are more
stringent than the Federal counterpart. For example, California's 1998
amendments to the State's regulations for 280cc and larger motorcycles
apply stringent exhaust emission standards: 1.4g/km for the 2004 model
year and 0.8g/km for the 2008 model year. EPA issued motorcycle
standards in December 2003 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/roadbike.htm#final).
These new Federal standards were patterned after
California's, but impose the same exhaust emission limits two years
later than California (i.e., in 2006 and 2010) and do not match
California's controls on evaporative emissions. Thus, the requirements
for this source category applicable within the SJV exceed even the
stringent national requirements in certain respects. On the other hand,
EPA's new regulations set stringent limits on the engines smaller than
50cc, a category not yet regulated by California. These national limits
for scooters and mopeds will apply in the SJV in 2006, in accordance
with the new EPA rule.
In addition, CARB has adopted more stringent fuel regulations than
nationally required. These regulations apply to:
(1) Gasoline--Phase III California Reformulated Gasoline
regulations (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/gasoline.htm);

(2) Diesel fuel regulations for motor vehicles
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm); and
(3) Liquefied petroleum gas and other alternative fuel regulations
for motor vehicles (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/altfuels/altfuels.htm).

Again, California's fuels programs have elements that are more
stringent than National requirements and are in no case less stringent
than EPA standards. For example, California applies its reformulated
gasoline requirements on a statewide basis in order to maximize
benefits both within and outside areas where the Clean Air

[[Page 5419]]

Act requires reformulated fuel. California's clean diesel program
applies to sale of fuel not only to onroad vehicles but also to nonroad
vehicles. California has established standards for LPG and other
alternative fuels, while EPA does not currently regulate these fuels.
The State has also established programs to reduce in-use emissions
from mobile sources. These programs include:
(1) The Carl Moyer Program, providing funding to pay for the
incremental costs of cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive and
stationary agricultural pump engines, as well as forklifts, airport
ground support equipment, and auxiliary power units
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm); and
(2) The School Bus Idling regulations
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/sbidling/sbidling.htm).
These California programs are national models for aggressive and
successful efforts to reduce in-use emissions and accelerate turnover
to cleaner engines.
We believe that the State's control programs constitute BACM at
this time for the mobile source and fuels categories, since the State's
measures (supplemented by Federal controls for certain mobile source
categories) reflect the most stringent emission control programs
currently available, taking into account economic and technological
feasibility.
b. District Sources. Table 4-8 of the 2003 PM-10 Plan lists the
significant source categories that are primarily within the District's
regulatory authority. A summary of how BACM has been provided for these
categories \16\ is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Pages 4-16 and 8-2 explain that emission estimates from
agricultural crop processing losses (3.1 tpd NO_X and 4.4
tpd PM-10) and unspecified agricultural products processing losses
(6.2 tpd NO_X) could not be adequately described to allow
development of emission controls. This problem occasionally occurs
because of the way inventories have been historically generated and
is reasonably addressed by SJVUAPCD's efforts to improve the
inventory. Page 4-18 reasonably explains that plastic and plastic
product manufacturing should now be treated as part of the baseline
rather than as a significant source category because of regulations
adopted in 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Agricultural Irrigation Internal Combustion Engines. This
category is estimated to emit 17.4 tpd NO_X and 1.2 tpd PM-10
in 1999 and is currently uncontrolled. SJVUAPCD Rule 4101 establishes a
20% opacity limit for internal combustion (IC) engines and Rule 4702
establishes NO_X emission limits and other requirements which
implement BACM for many IC engines, as discussed below in paragraph
IV.D.2.b.iv. (internal combustion engines, stationary), but both of
these regulations currently exempt IC engines used in agriculture.
Through adoption of the PM-10 Plan Amendments dated December 18, 2003,
SJVUAPCD has committed to implement BACM for agricultural IC engines by
removing the general agricultural exemptions from Rules 4101 and 4702
and to establish NO_X emission limits in Rule 4702 for diesel
IC engines used in agriculture. In a separate action (see 68 FR 55917,
September 29, 2003, and 69 FR 1271, January 8, 2004), EPA determined
that the opacity limits in Rule 4101 are generally sufficient for BACM.
These rules will be revised by 4Q/04 \17\ and July 1, 2005,
implemented by 3Q/05 and January 1, 2006, and will achieve unspecified
PM-10 and 7.5 tons/day NO_X emission reductions respectively.
See pages 4-22, 4-23 and 4-46 to 4-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Where commitments are made for a given month, quarter or
year, EPA considers the deadline to be the last day of the month,
quarter or year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Charbroiling. This category is estimated to emit 1.3 tpd of PM-
10 in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroiling, limits
emissions of, among other things, particulate matter from chain-driven
charbroilers at restaurants and fast food facilities by requiring
charbroilers to be operated with a tested or certified catalytic
oxidizer control device. On June 3, 2003, EPA published a direct final
approval of Rule 4692, locally adopted on March 21, 2002.
In developing Rule 4692, SJVUAPCD used South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1138, Control of Emissions from
Restaurants, as guidance. SCAQMD Rule 1138 is considered the most
effective district regulatory standard in effect for this source
category. The flameless catalytic oxidizer was determined to be the
most cost-effective control method for reducing PM-10 emissions from
chain-driven charbroilers. SJVUAPCD's staff report supporting adoption
of Rule 4692 provides a detailed analysis of the technological and
economic feasibility of possible control technologies.
SJVUAPCD estimates that implementation of Rule 4692 will reduce PM-
10 emissions by 0.11 ton/day.
(3) Cotton Gins. This category is estimated to emit 2.7 tpd of PM-
10 in 1999. SJVUAPCD commits to adopt a new rule to require 95%
efficient 1D-3D cyclones for high-pressure exhaust units, 90% efficient
2D-2D cyclones for low-pressure exhaust units, and appropriate trash
hoppers to minimize fugitive emissions. These limits are considered as
BACT when issuing permits for new and modified sources in the SJV.
This rule will be adopted by 4Q/04, implemented by 2005, and will
reduce PM-10 emissions by 1.5 tpd. See pages 4-22, 4-23, 4-29 and 4-30.
(4) Internal Combustion Engines, Stationary. This category is
estimated to emit 47 tpd of NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4701,
Internal Combustion Engines--Phase 1, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, Internal
Combustion Engines--Phase 2, limit emissions of NO_X and
other pollutants from internal combustion (IC) engines rated greater
than 50 horsepower. These rules establish different emission limits and
compliance schedules depending on engine type, size and location. On
February 28, 2002, EPA published a final limited approval and limited
disapproval of the version of Rule 4701 locally adopted on December 19,
1996. In this action, EPA noted that Rule 4701 would strengthen the
SIP, but also noted several deficiencies in the rule regarding rule
applicability and enforceability that prevented EPA from fully
approving the rule. See 67 FR 9209 (February 28, 2002).
SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4701 and adopted new Rule 4702 on August 21,
2003. Rule 4701 applies to both spark-ignited and compression-ignited
(i.e., diesel) IC engines, whereas Rule 4702 applies only to spark-
ignited IC engines. Rule 4702 and the amendments to Rule 4701 address
the issues identified in EPA's limited disapproval and tighten the
NO_X emission limits for spark-ignited IC engines to fulfill
Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). BARCT is a
California requirement that is defined similarly to Federal BACT. The
NO_X emission limits for diesel IC engines in Rule 4701 did
not need to be tightened since they already reflect BARCT level of
control. Both Rules 4701 and 4702 currently exempt IC engines used in
agriculture. However, as noted above in paragraph IV.D.2.b.i.
(Agricultural irrigation internal combustion engines), SJVUAPCD has
committed to remove the general agricultural exemption from Rule 4702
and to amend Rule 4702 to establish BACM-level NO_X emission
limits for diesel IC engines used in agriculture.
SJVUAPCD's staff report supporting the 2003 amendments to Rule 4701
and the adoption of Rule 4702 provides a detailed analysis of the
inventory of affected engines and the technological and economic
feasibility of possible

[[Page 5420]]

control technologies. With the exception of agricultural IC engines,
Rule 4701 establishes BACM level of control for diesel IC engines, and
new Rule 4702 establishes BACM level of control for spark-ignited IC
engines. SJVUAPCD estimates 85-96% control for the various
requirements, resulting in reduced NO_X emissions of 1.8
tons/day. See final draft staff report to SJVUAPCD Rules 4701 and 4702
(August 21, 2003). In a separate action (see 68 FR 55917, September 29,
2003, and 69 FR 1271, January 8, 2004), EPA also determined that the
opacity limits in Rule 4101, which also apply to these sources, are
generally sufficient for BACM.
In a separate rulemaking, we are proposing approval of Rule 4702.
(5) Fugitive Dust. (i) Agricultural Conservation Management
Practice Program. The Agricultural Conservation Management Practices
(Ag CMP) Program covers the following significant PM-10 source
categories: Agricultural unpaved roads, agricultural windblown dust,
cattle feedlot dust, harvest operations, livestock wastes, tilling
dust, and windblown dust from pasture lands. SJVUAPCD estimates that,
without this program, these source categories will emit 144.3 tons per
day of PM-10 in 2010. Like other PM-10 nonattainment areas (e.g.,
Phoenix and Los Angeles), SJVUAPCD has chosen to reduce emissions from
agricultural sources with a program that provides more flexibility than
a typical command and control regulation.
The Ag CMP Program will require growers to submit CMP plans to
SJVUAPCD. The plans will identify the CMPs that the growers are
implementing in each of five (three for concentrated animal feeding
operations) categories: Unpaved roads, unpaved vehicle/equipment
traffic areas, land preparation, harvest, and other (including
windblown PM-10 from open areas and agricultural burning). A list of
CMPs for these categories is currently being developed, and the CMP
plans will include information on the CMPs selected by each grower. The
District will ensure that growers comply with the CMP plans and that
overall reductions for the Ag CMP Program are met.
Based on the program description and its similarity to programs we
have approved elsewhere as BACM, we believe that SJVUAPCD's Ag CMP
program will achieve a BACM level of control for these source
categories. SJVUAPCD has committed to adopt the Ag CMP Program in April
2004, implement it in July 2004, and reduce PM-10 emissions by 33.8
tons per day in 2010. See pages 4-22 to 4-29.
(ii) Regulation VIII Sources. SJVUAPCD Regulation VIII addresses
fugitive dust emissions from the following significant source
categories: agricultural unpaved roads, earthmoving, open areas, and
non-agricultural paved and unpaved roads. The eight rules composing
Regulation VIII are Rule 8011, General Requirements, Rule 8021,
Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other
Earthmoving, Rule 8031, Bulk Materials, Rule 8041, Carryout and
Trackout, Rule 8051, Open Areas, Rule 8061, Paved and Unpaved Roads,
Rule 8071, Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas, and Rule 8081,
Agricultural Sources. The TSD provides more information about these
sources and emissions.
The TSD also summarizes the history of EPA rulemaking on Regulation
VIII, including previous findings on RACM and BACM. Most recently, we
issued a conditional approval of Regulation VIII as fulfilling RACM,
and a limited approval/disapproval regarding BACM. See 68 FR 8830
(February 26, 2003). As the basis for this limited disapproval, we
cited the absence of sufficiently detailed information to evaluate the
feasibility and impacts of Regulation VIII at various thresholds and at
alternative thresholds.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for SJVUAPCD Rules 8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061,
8071 and 8081, U.S. EPA, March 14, 2002, pg. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 2003 PM-10 Plan, the District provided a cost-effectiveness
analysis to help determine what measures and applicability thresholds
in Regulation VIII fulfill BACM.\19\ In general, the District adopted
all measures projected to cost less than $5,000 per ton PM-10 reduced,
and the District performed additional analyses on those measures
projected to cost between $5,000 and $500,000 per ton PM-10 reduced.
The District also provided a comparison between Regulation VIII and
analogous rules that we have recently determined to fulfill BACM in
other areas. Based on these analyses, the District committed to change
many of the applicability thresholds listed in EPA's 2003 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Appendix G to the 2003 PM-10 Plan, Exhibit A, ``Final BACM
Technological and Economic Feasibility Analysis'', Sierra Research,
March 21, 2003; and Exhibit C, ``Supplemental BACM Analysis'', San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, added December 18,
2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Table titled, ``Summary of Regulation VIII Measures''
summarizes the measures, both adopted and committed, that help fulfill
RACM and BACM for fugitive dust source categories covered by Regulation
VIII. These are discussed in greater detail in the TSD. We believe
these measures and SJVUAPCD's supporting analyses adequately fulfill
the condition that was the subject of the conditional approval
regarding RACM, and cure the deficiencies that were the subject of the
limited disapproval regarding BACM. As a result, final action approving
the RACM/BACM demonstration in the 2003 PM-10 Plan would terminate the
sanctions and FIP clocks and the disapproval implications associated
with our February 26, 2003 action on Regulation VIII.

Summary of Regulation VIII Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category Adopted or committed measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paved roads....................... Adopted measure requires paved
shoulders on new or modified paved
roads that receive 500-3,000
average daily vehicle trips (ADT).
Committed measure to pave shoulders
of 50% highest-ADT urban roads and
25% highest-ADT rural roads,
subject to funding availability.
Committed measure for new street
sweepers to be PM-10 efficient,
including purchase of at least one
efficient sweeper within 3 years.
Committed measure requires removal
of dirt/debris from roadways within
24 hours of identification
following a wind/rain event.
Committed measure requires at least
once-per-month sweeping on roads
where PM-10 efficient street
sweepers are used.
Committed measure requires trackout
control devices on unpaved haul/
access roads with [ge]
20 trips per
day by 3-axle vehicles.

[[Page 5421]]

Committed measure requires removal
of trackout extending [ge]
50 ft.
onto public paved roads within one
hour of occurrence, excluding rural
area construction sites less than
10 acres in size.
Unpaved roads (public and private, Committed measure requires all new
non-agricultural). non-temporary roads in urban areas
to be paved. Some county ordinances
and commitments prohibit creation
of new unpaved roads in rural
areas.
Committed measures require paving of
20% or up to 5 miles of existing
urban owned road per city
jurisdiction and stabilization of
any existing unpaved roads with
[ge]
26 annual ADT.
Committed measure limits vehicle
speeds to 25 mph.
Unpaved roads (agricultural)...... Committed measure requires control
of roads on days they receive [ge]
75 vehicle trips and/or [ge]
25
heavy truck trips.
Committed measure limits speeds on
unpaved agricultural roads subject
to the Agricultural CMP rule (other
options include surface treatment
or restricted access).
Unpaved parking/traffic areas Committed measure requires
public and private, stabilization of unpaved parking
nonagricultural). areas with [ge]
50 annual ADT and/
or on days they receive [ge]
25
heavy truck trips.
Committed measure to revise the
existing single-day 75 vehicle trip
threshold and replace it with a 150
single-day or 30-day threshold.
Unpaved parking/traffic areas Committed measure requires control
(agricultural). of parking/traffic areas with [ge]
50 annual ADT and/or on days they
receive [ge]
25 heavy truck trips.
Committed measure to revise the
existing single-day 75 vehicle trip
threshold and replace it with a 150
single-day or 30-day threshold.
Construction demolition, Committed measure requires Dust
industrial (incl. earthmoving, Control Plans for residential
bulk materials handling/storage projects £ 10 acres and
and windblown sources). commercial projects £ 5
acres and District notification of
earthmoving projects [ge]
1 acre.
Adopted measure requires pre-
watering sites before earthmoving
to meet 20% opacity.
Adopted measure requires application
of water or dust suppressant during
earthmoving to meet 20% opacity.
Adopted measure requires application
of water or dust suppressant on
unpaved haul/access roads to meet
20% opacity and the conditions of a
stablizied surface.
Committed measure to cease
construction activities during wind
events. Water trucks must continue
operating unless it is unsafe.
Adopted measure requires application
of water or dust suppressant on
disturbed inactive surfaces to meet
the conditions of a stabilized
surface.
Agricultural bulk materials Adopted measure requires application
storage piles and trackout. of water or dust suppressant during
handling of bulk materials to meet
20% opacity.
Committed measure to remove existing
100 cubic yard exemption for
applying controls during the active
handling of bulk material piles.
Adopted measure requires inactive
bulk material piles [ge]
100 cubic
yards to be covered or stabilized.
Committed measure to adopt
California Vehicle Code trackout
removal requirements.
Vacant disturbed land (non- Committed measure to require
agricultural). stabilization of urban vacant lots
[ge]
0.5 acres with [ge]
1,000 sq.
ft. of disturbed surface.
Applicable rural vacant lot size is
[ge]
3 acres.
Adopted measure requires physical
barriers or other means to prevent
trespass.
Adopted measure requires watering to
meet 20% opacity and surface
stabilization following weed
abatement on lots \1/2\ acre or
larger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SJVUAPCD commits to adopt revisions to Regulation VIII as
summarized in the previous table. These revisions will be adopted in
September 2004, implemented in September 2004, and will reduce PM-10
emissions from 2010 baseline estimates as shown in the following table.
See pages 4-22, 4-23 and 4-31 to 4-38.

Estimated PM-10 Emission Reductions From Regulation VIII
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010
2010 Emission %
Rule Emissions reductions Reduction
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8021.................................. 30.5 6.1 20.0
8031.................................. 0.2 0.0 0.3
8051.................................. 3.0 0.5 16.7
8061.................................. 85.3 10.4 12.2
8071.................................. 1.0 0.3 30.0
8081.................................. 16.9 1.5 8.9
------------
Total............................. 136.9 18.8 13.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) Glass Manufacturing. This category is estimated to emit 12.3
tpd of NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, Glass Melting
Furnaces, limits emissions of NO_X and other pollutants from
glass melting furnaces in the San

[[Page 5422]]

Joaquin Valley. On September 1, 2000 (65 FR 53181), EPA finalized a
limited approval and limited disapproval of the version of Rule 4354
locally adopted on April 16, 1998. In that action, EPA noted that the
rule as a whole strengthens the SIP, but identified several
deficiencies regarding monitoring and compliance requirements.
SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4354 on February 21, 2002. In addition to
addressing the issues identified in EPA's limited disapproval, this
amendment changed the definition of ``major NO_X source''
from 50 to 25 tons or more per year of NO_X, to reflect the
San Joaquin Valley's reclassification from serious to severe ozone
nonattainment status. EPA fully approved this Rule on December 6, 2002
(65 FR 72573).
SJVUAPCD's staff report supporting the 2002 amendments provides a
rule consistency analysis that compares the elements of Rule 4354 with
the corresponding elements of other District rules, Federal regulations
and guidelines that apply to the same type of equipment or source
category. The staff report for the April 16, 1998, version of the rule
described the rule as implementing BARCT.
The NO_X emission limits in Rule 4354 for container glass
furnaces are consistent with limits imposed in SCAQMD and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District. The SJVUAPCD conducted cost
effectiveness and socioeconomic analyses for the emission limits in
Rule 4354, and the results of these analyses are contained in the staff
report for the April 16, 1998, version of the rule. See final draft
staff reports for amendments to SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 (April 16, 1998 and
February 22, 2002).
(7) Manufacturing and Industrial Fuel Combustion. This category is
estimated to emit 24.3 tpd of NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD commits
to adopt new rules that would establish NO_X emission
standards for dryers based on PUC-quality natural gas, low excess air,
low-NO_X burners and flue gas recirculation; require low
excess air, low-NO_X burners and flue gas recirculation for
small boilers, steam generators and process heaters; and require BACM-
level prohibitions for industrial, commercial and institutional water
heaters.
These rules will be adopted by 2Q/04, 4Q/04 and 4Q/04; implemented
by 2006, 2006 and 2004; and will reduce emissions by 1.0, 1.0 and 0.2
tpd of NO_X respectively, although not all these reductions
fall within this source category. See pages 4-22, 4-23, 4-30, 4-31 and
4-42 to 4-44.
(8) Natural Gas Boilers. This category is estimated to emit 3.7 tpd
NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4351, Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters--Phase 1, Rule 4305, Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters--Phase 2, and Rule 4306, Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters--Phase 3, limit emissions of NO_X and other
pollutants from gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired boilers, steam
generators, and process heaters with a total rated heat input greater
than 5 million Btu per hour. These rules establish different emission
limits and compliance schedules depending on unit type, fuel and size.
On February 28, 2002, EPA published a final limited approval and
limited disapproval of Rule 4305, locally adopted on December 19, 1996,
and Rule 4351, locally adopted on October 19, 1995. In this action, EPA
noted that the general requirements of these rules would strengthen the
SIP, but identified several deficiencies regarding rule applicability
and enforceability that prevented EPA from fully approving the rule.
See 67 FR 9209 (February 28, 2002).
SJVUAPCD amended Rules 4351 and 4305 on August 21, 2003, and
adopted Rule 4306 on September 18, 2003. The District took these
actions partly to address the issues identified in EPA's limited
disapproval but also to establish BACM level of control for this source
category.
SJVUAPCD's staff report supporting the 2003 amendments for Rule
4305 and 4351, and the adoption of Rule 4306, provides a detailed
analysis of the technological and economic feasibility of possible
control technologies. This includes socioeconomic and cost
effectiveness analyses of combustion modification and exhaust gas
treatment. The analysis also includes comparison to analogous
requirements in other nonattainment areas. While Rules 4305 and 4351
remain enforceable, they will become obsolete as the more stringent
limits of Rule 4306 become effective. These limits are generally at
least as stringent as State BARCT. SJVUAPCD estimates that Rule 4306
will reduce NO_X emissions by about 7.7 tons/day in 2005. See
final draft staff report to SJVUAPCD Rules 4305, 4351 and 4306
(September 18, 2003). In a separate rulemaking, we are proposing
approval of these rules.
(9) Natural Gas Fired Oilfield Steam Generators. This category is
estimated to emit 6.4 tpd of NO_X and 1.4 tpd of PM-10 in
1999. The discussion above of NO_X controls for natural gas
boilers in Rule 4306 applies to natural gas fired oilfield steam
generators as well. Page 4-18 states that a BACT investigation revealed
that there are no available controls for PM-10.
(10) Oil Drilling and Workover. This category is estimated to emit
10.8 tpd of NO_X in 1999. The PM-10 plan (pages 4-18, G-133
and G-134) explains that SJVUAPCD Rule 2280 and CARB's portable
equipment registration program (PERC, see 13 California Code of
Regulations 2450-2466) provide BACM for this category. These rules
establish numerous operational requirements and emission limitations
for applicable engines. Sources may choose to register engines,
including those used for oil drilling and workover, under either PERC
or SJVUAPCD's analogous Rule 2280 program. Most sources register under
PERC because it is less expensive and allows use of portable engines
throughout the state. To register under PERC, engines manufactured
after January 1, 1996, must meet the most stringent emission standard
(see 13 CCR 2456(e)(b)), which is effectively California's Off-Road
Compression Ignition Engine Standards referenced in section
IV.D.2.a.(6).
(11) Open Burning. This category is estimated to emit 4.6 tpd of
NO_X and 11.3 tpd of PM-10 in 1999. EPA has separately
determined that SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 implements BACM for open burning.
See 67 FR 8894 (Feb. 27, 2002).
(12) Prescribed Burning. This category is estimated to emit 16.5
tpd of NO_X and 28.9 tpd of PM-10 in 1999. EPA has separately
determined that SJVUAPCD Rule 4106 implements BACM for prescribed
burning. See 67 FR 8894, (Feb. 27, 2002).
(13) Residential Space Heating. This category is estimated to emit
2.7 tpd of NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD commits to adopt a new rule
requiring that newly installed residential furnaces emit no more than
40 nanograms NO_X per joule of heat output. This standard is
equivalent to controls adopted in the South Coast, Bay Area and other
parts of California, and is believed to be the most stringent in effect
in the country.
This rule will be adopted by 3Q/04, implemented fully by 2020, and
will reduce NO_X emissions by 0.01 tons/day. See pages 4-22,
4-23, 4-45 and 4-46.
(14) Residential Water Heaters. This category is estimated to emit
1.6 tpd of NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4902, Residential
Water Heaters, limits NO_X emissions from residential gas-
fired water heaters in the San Joaquin Valley. This rule establishes a
maximum NO_X emission limit for newly manufactured water
heaters with a rated heat input less than or equal to 75,000 Btu/hr.
Rule 4902 was originally adopted by the SJVUAPCD on June 17, 1993, and

[[Page 5423]]

submitted to EPA on November 4, 2003, as a revision to the SIP. EPA is
publishing a separate direct final approval of this submittal.
SJVUAPCD estimates that the 40 nanograms per joule of heat output
limit in Rule 4902 will reduce NO_X emissions by 2.24 tons
per day by 2003.
The requirements in Rule 4902 are among the most stringent in the
country and the NO_X emission limit is equivalent to limits
in effect elsewhere in California (e.g., Sacramento, Santa Barbara and
Ventura). See staff report to SJVUAPCD Rule 4902 (May 25, 1993).
(15) Residential Wood Combustion. This category is estimated to
emit 11.3 tpd of PM-10 in 1999. EPA has separately determined that
SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 implements BACM for residential wood combustion. See
68 FR 56181 (Sept. 9, 2003).
(16) Service and Commercial--Other Fuel Combustion. This category
is estimated to emit 25.7 tpd of NO_X and 1.0 tpd of PM-10 in
1999. SJVUAPCD has committed to adopt new rules that would establish
NO_X emission standards for dryers based on PUC-quality
natural gas, low excess air, low-NO_X burners and flue gas
recirculation; require low excess air, low-NO_X burners and
flue gas recirculation for small boilers, steam generators and process
heaters; and require BACM-level prohibitions for industrial, commercial
and institutional water heaters.
These rules will be adopted by 2Q/04, 4Q/04 and 4Q/04; implemented
by 2006, 2006 and 2004; and will reduce emissions by 1.0, 1.0 and 0.2
tpd of NO_X respectively, although not all these reductions
fall within this source category. See pages 4-22, 4-23, 4-30, 4-31 and
4-42 to 4-44.
(17) Solid-Fuel Boiler, Steam Generators and Process Heaters. This
category is estimated to emit 3.5 tpd of NO_X in 1999.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters, limits emissions of NO_X and other
pollutants from boilers and similar units burning coal, biomass and
other solid fuels in the San Joaquin Valley. On February 11, 1999 (64
FR 6803), EPA published a direct final approval of the version of Rule
4352 locally adopted on October 19, 1995. In this action, EPA noted
that the emission limits in Rule 4352 (e.g., 0.20 lb/MMBtu of heat
input for coal) generally fulfilled RACT requirements.
Appendix G, Exhibit D, of the PM-10 Plan provides an analysis of
the 15 units subject to Rule 4352. This analysis compares the emission
limits in District permits with analogous limits provided in EPA's
RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse. The analysis shows that each District
permit is more stringent than the average limit found in the
clearinghouse for similar sources (e.g., large coal units, medium
biomass units).
Because cost, feasibility and effectiveness of control vary widely
in this source category depending on fuel, size and design of each
unit, a BACM demonstration for the category is necessarily complex. The
methodology provided by SJVUAPCD is conservative in that the RACT/BACT/
LAER clearinghouse describes controls for new sources, which are
generally more stringent than those required as BACM for existing
sources. However, some of the clearinghouse requirements may be dated
and BACM is generally implemented by rule rather than permit. Given the
relatively small size of this source category and the complexity of the
analysis, we believe SJVUAPCD has made reasonable assumptions on
balance.
(18) Stationary Gas Turbines. This category is estimated to emit
10.2 tpd of NO_X in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 limits emissions
of NO_X and other pollutants from stationary gas turbine
systems with ratings equal to or greater than 0.3 megawatt (MW) and/or
maximum heat input ratings of more than 3 million Btu per hour. This
rule that establishes different emission limits and compliance
schedules depending on turbine size, fuel and design. On February 28,
2002, EPA published a final limited approval and limited disapproval of
the version of Rule 4703 locally adopted on October 16, 1997. In this
action, EPA noted that the emission limits in Rule 4703 (e.g., 9-42
ppmv NO_X, depending on size, for natural gas fired units)
generally established RACT-level of control for this source category,
but EPA noted several other deficiencies in the rule, however,
regarding rule applicability and enforceability that prevented EPA from
fully approving the rule. See 67 FR 9209.
SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4703 on April 25, 2002. In addition to
addressing the issues identified in EPA's limited disapproval, this
amendment significantly tightened the emission limits (e.g., 3-35 ppmv
NO_X, depending on size, for all but one natural gas fired
design). SJVUAPCD tightened the emission limits partly to fulfill State
BARCT.
SJVUAPCD's staff report supporting the 2002 amendments provides a
detailed analysis of the inventory of affected turbines and the
technological and economic feasibility of possible control
technologies. SJVUAPCD's 2002 amendments to Rule 4703 establish BACM
level of control for this source category. SJVUAPCD estimates that the
2002 amendments will reduce NO_X emissions by about 5.4 tons/
day in 2010. See final staff report to SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 (April 25,
2002). In a separate rulemaking, we are proposing action on this rule.

E. VOC and SO_X Sources

SJVUAPCD committed to adopt new or revised rules to reduce VOC and
SO_X emissions. A BACM demonstration is not needed for these
emissions because, given the NO_X/PM strategy, they are not
considered to be necessary at this time. After the CRPAQS results are
available and as part of the mid-course review for the 2003 PM-10 Plan,
the District will reexamine whether VOC and SO_X reductions
are necessary. We are, however, proposing to approve the commitments
for VOC and SO_X requirements under CAA sections 301(a) and
110(k)(3) as strengthening the SIP.
1. Oil and Gas Fugitives From Crude Oil and Gas Production and Natural
Gas Processing Facilities
This category is estimated to emit 10.6 tpd of VOC in 2005.
SJVUAPCD commits to adopt Rule 4403 to reduce fugitive emissions from
flanges, valves, fittings, and other components. Possible controls
include lowering the gaseous leak threshold, eliminating exemptions,
increasing inspection frequency, shortening the repair period and
replacing frequently leaking components with BACT. This rule revision
will be adopted in 1Q/04, implemented in 1Q/05 and will reduce VOC
emissions by 4.8 tpd. See page 4-10.
2. Oil and Gas Fugitives From Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants
This category is estimated to emit 0.5 tpd of VOC in 2005. SJVUAPCD
commits to adopt Rule 4455 to reduce fugitive emissions from flanges,
valves, and other components. Possible controls include lowering the
gaseous leak threshold, increasing inspection frequency, shortening the
repair period and replacing frequently leaking components with BACT.
This rule revision will be adopted in 1Q/04, implemented in 1Q/05 and
will reduce VOC emissions by 0.2 tpd. See pages 4-10 and 4-11.
3. Can and Coil Coatings
This category is estimated to emit 4.6 tpd of VOC in 2005. SJVUAPCD
commits to revise Rule 4604 to lower VOC content limits consistent with
the State's RACT/BARCT determination. This rule revision will be
adopted in 1Q/04, implemented in 4Q/04 and will

[[Page 5424]]

reduce VOC emissions by 0.3 tpd. See page 4-11.
4. Agricultural Conservation Management Practice Program
The commitment for this category, summarized above, is also
projected to achieve unspecified VOC emission reductions.
5. Dryers
The commitment for this category, summarized above in sections
IV.D.2.b.7. (manufacturing and industrial fuel combustion) and
IV.D.2.b.16. (service and commercial-other fuel combustion), is also
projected to reduce SO_X emissions by 1.1 tpd.
6. Gas-Fired Oilfield Steam Generators
The sources subject to this commitment are estimated to emit 8.5
tpd of SO_X in 2006. SJVUAPCD commits to revise Rule 4406 to
require fuel conditioning and/or caustic scrubbing of the exhaust gas.
This rule revision will be adopted in 4Q/04, implemented in 2006, and
will reduce SO_X emissions by 5.0 tpd. See pages 4-22, 4-23,
4-39 and 4-40.
7. Glass Manufacturing
Rule 4354 also establishes NO_X limits as described in
section IV.D.2.b.6., Glass Manufacturing. This category is estimated to
emit 4.2 tpd of SO_X in 2006. SJVUAPCD commits to revise Rule
4354 to establish SO_X emission limits designed to require
low-sulfur fuel or caustic scrubbing of the exhaust gas. This rule
revision will be adopted in 2Q/05, implemented in 2006, and will reduce
SO_X emissions by 1.1 tpd. See pages 4-22, 4-23 and 4-39.
8. Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters
The commitment for this category, described above in paragraphs
IV.D.2.b.vii (manufacturing and industrial fuel combustion) and
IV.D.2.b.xv (service and commercial-other fuel combustion), is also
projected to reduce SO_X emissions by 0.1 tpd.
9. Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Well Vents
Sources subject to this commitment are estimated to emit 14.7 tpd
of VOC in 2006. SJVUAPCD commits to revise Rule 4401 to lower exemption
thresholds. This rule will be revised in 1Q/05, implemented in 2006,
and will reduce VOC emissions by 1.5 tpd. See pages 4-22, 4-23 and 4-
45.
10. Wineries
Sources subject to this commitment are estimated to emit 7.9 tpd of
VOC in 2007. SJVUAPCD commits to adopt a new rule to establish controls
for wineries using tanks with vapor collection/control, carbon
adsorption, water scrubbers, catalytic incineration, condensation, and/
or additional temperature controls. This rule will be adopted in 4Q/04,
implemented in 2007, and will reduce VOC emissions by 2.5 tpd. See
pages 4-22, 4-23, 4-44 and 4-45.

F. Attainment Demonstration

For serious PM-10 nonattainment areas, CAA section 189(b)(1)(A)
requires an attainment demonstration showing attainment by the
applicable attainment date using appropriate air quality modeling. As
explained in section III.F. above, for serious PM-10 areas that have
failed to attain by the applicable attainment date (such as the SJV),
the CAA requires plan revisions which provide for, among other things,
attainment of the PM-10 standards as expeditiously as practicable. CAA
section 189(d). Because the SJV missed the 2001 attainment date
otherwise applicable, we believe that the attainment date is governed
by other provisions of the CAA. The attainment deadline applicable to
the plan revision is therefore as soon as practicable, but no later
than 5 years from the publication date of the nonattainment finding
notice (67 FR 48039, published July 23, 2002). EPA may, however, extend
the attainment deadline to the extent it deems appropriate for a period
no greater than 10 years from the publication date, ``considering the
severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of
pollution control measures.'' CAA section 179(d)(3).
The 2003 PM-10 Plan demonstrates attainment of the PM-10 standards
by 2010 based on the NO_X/PM strategy (see section IV.A.
above). To provide for expeditious attainment, the Plan relies on fully
adopted regulations and enforceable commitments to adopt new,
identified measures that will constitute BACM (section IV.D.2. above).
In addition, the 2003 PM-10 Plan's attainment demonstration relies
on emission reductions from an enforceable commitment by the SJVUAPCD
to adopt and implement a new Indirect Source Mitigation Program
achieving 4.1 tons/day of NO_X and 6.2 tons/day of PM-10 and
an enforceable commitment by the State achieving 10 tons/day of
NO_X and 0.5 tons/day of PM-10 in 2010. Finally, the Plan
includes an enforceable commitment to submit a SIP revision in March
2006 (mid-course review or MCR) which will include the results of the
CRPAQS. These commitments are discussed further below.
1. Modeling Used for the Attainment Demonstration
EPA's modeling guidance (PM-10 SIP Development Guideline (PMSDG),
EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987) presents three options for estimating air
quality impacts of emissions of PM-10 using dispersion and receptor
models: \20\ (1) Use of receptor and dispersion models in combination
(preferred); (2) use of dispersion model alone; and (3) use of two
receptor models, with a control stratagem developed using a
proportional model. The third approach is only encouraged if no
applicable dispersion model is available, which is the case for the
SJV.\21\ Therefore, EPA based its evaluation of the attainment
demonstration on the District's use of two receptor models, with a
control stratagem developed using a proportional model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ PMSDG, 4.1 Introduction.
\21\ The Guideline on Air Quality Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W, has a detailed discussion of modeling requirements for
particulate matter and states that ``[n]o model recommended for
general use at this time accounts for secondary particulate
formation or other transformations in a manner suitable for SIP
control strategy demonstrations.'' (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W,
7.2.2.c.) Primary particulates cannot be modeled independently
through dispersion modeling. Thus, although the 2003 PM-10 Plan
includes dispersion modeling (Appendix M, UAM Documentation for
NO_X and NH₃), we are not relying on it for our
proposed approval of the Plan's attainment demonstration. For more
information, see the TSD for this rulemaking.
Given that the guidance documents for PM-10 do not indicate how
to model secondary pollutant formation, EPA must evaluate submitted
PM-10 SIPs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the air quality
facts of each area. EPA has evaluated the attainment demonstration
in the 2003 PM-10 Plan based on the Agency's PM-10 guidance
documents, PMSDG and GAQM. EPA is currently developing guidance for
demonstrating attainment of the PM-2.5 standard, 40 CFR 50.7, that
may ultimately provide more specificity regarding the models to be
used for secondary particulates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recommended approach for PM-10 source apportionment is the use
of at least two receptor methods: Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and a
corroborating method.\22\ If CMB is used for source apportionment, it
is required that at least one other modeling approach be used as a
corroborating analysis. The corroborating analysis may be factor
analysis, microscopy, automated scanning electron microscopy,
microinventory, trajectory analysis, or other corroborating
approach.\23\ In the PMSDG, the terms ``model'' and ``method'' are used
interchangeably, even though analysis methods such as

[[Page 5425]]

scanning electron or optical microscopy are methods, not models.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ PMSDG, Table 4-2 Recommended Approaches for PM10 Source
Apportionment.
\23\ PMSDG, 4.4 Receptor Models for Estimation PM10
Concentrations.
\24\ PMSDG, p. 4-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 2003 PM-10 Plan, receptor modeling is used to identify the
source contributions for each of the measured ambient concentrations
above the PM-10 standards (i.e., days exceeding the PM-10 standards).
The corroborating analysis for the Plan includes the use of correlation
coefficients, episode day and time serious analyses, and wind
trajectory analyses. The proportional modeling is used to identify the
relationship between source categories and PM-10 concentrations for
specific days and the effect of emission reductions from the proposed
control strategy on PM-10 concentrations. See TSD for more details.
The results of the proportional modeling for the 24-hour standard
and annual standard are presented in the tables below, which show the
current and future design concentrations for each site which exceeds
the standards.

Simulated Future Year 24-hour PM-10 Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 without 2010 with
Site name Design value additional additional
reductions reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield--California Ave..................................... 190 186 137
Bakersfield--Golden # 2................................. 205 203 151
Clovis.......................................................... 155 145 120
Corcoran, Patterson Ave......................................... 174 185 143
174 197 138
Fresno--Drummond................................................ 186 181 140
Fresno--First St................................................ 193 182 144
Hanford, Irwin St............................................... 185 189 143
Modesto, 14th Street............................................ 158 144 121
Oildale, 3311 Manor St.......................................... 158 151 120
Turlock, 900 Minaret Street..................................... 157 162 116
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simulated Future Year Annual PM-10 Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 without 2010 with
Site name Design value additional additional
reductions reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield--Golden # 2................................. 57 58 49
Fresno--Drummond................................................ 50 50 45
Hanford--Irwin St............................................... 53 52 47
Visalia--Church St.............................................. 54 52 46
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the District's analysis, attainment is demonstrated for both
the 24-hour and annual PM-10 standards. See 2003 PM-10 Plan, p. 6-8 to
6-9. Each site is projected to have design concentrations at or below
the PM-10 standards in 2010. We believe that the attainment
demonstration approach in the 2003 PM-10 Plan satisfies EPA's
requirements for demonstrating attainment of the 24-hour and annual PM-
10 standards.
2. Attainment Date
The SJV is one of only eight PM-10 nonattainment areas in the
country. For urban areas nationwide, the SJV has the third highest
average annual mean PM-10 concentration (ranking only behind Phoenix,
Arizona and the greater Los Angeles area.) The PM-10 concentrations
recorded over the last few years at the Corcoran and Bakersfield
monitoring sites have been significantly above the Federal standard.
The PM-10 problem in the SJV is complex, caused by both direct PM-10
and reactive precursors, and compounded by the topographical and
meteorological conditions for the area. 2003 PM-10 Plan, Chapter 2.
As discussed in section IV.A. above, the District's strategy for
attaining the PM-10 standard relies on reductions of PM-10 and
NO_X. The SJV needs significant reductions in PM-10 and
NO_X to demonstrate attainment. Further reduction of these
pollutants is challenging, since the State and local air pollution
regulations already in place include most of the readily available PM-
10 and NO_X control measures. Moreover, attainment in the San
Joaquin Valley must also mitigate the emissions increases associated
with the projected increases in population and activity levels for this
high-growth area.
As discussed in section IV.D. above, we believe that the
combination of previously adopted measures and commitments for specific
future controls in the Plan represent BACM for this area. The Plan also
includes two measures, the Indirect Source Mitigation Program and the
State mobile source measure commitment (discussed in section IV.F.3.
below.) which we believe go beyond the BACM requirement. We believe
that the District's implementation schedule for all measures needed for
attainment is expeditious. The direct PM-10 reductions are achieved
primarily from Regulation VIII fugitive dust, the Ag CMP Program and
residential wood combustion requirements. These types of dust and smoke
controls present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large
number of individuals subject to regulation and the difficulty of
applying conventional technological control solutions). Because of the
importance of these relatively difficult to control source categories
in the San Joaquin emissions inventory and the need to conduct
significant public outreach if applicable control approaches are to be
effective, EPA agrees with the District and State that the Plan
reflects expeditious implementation of the programs during the 2003-
2010 time frame. EPA also agrees that the implementation schedule for
enhanced stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into account
the

[[Page 5426]]

time necessary for purchase and installation of the required control
technologies. Finally, we believe that it is not feasible at this time
to accelerate the emission reduction schedule for the State and Federal
mobile source requirements which set aggressive compliance dates for
new emission standards and which must rely on fleet turnover over the
years to deliver the ultimate emission reductions. See 2003 PM-10 Plan,
p. ES-19. The District's control strategies are discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 4 of the 2003 PM-10 Plan, in section IV.D.2. above
and in section IV.F.3. below.
Therefore, EPA believes that the District and State are
implementing these rules and programs as expeditiously as practicable
and that it is not feasible to have faster implementation dates nor are
there any additional feasible measures which can be implemented. We
anticipate that the District will reevaluate this conclusion after
completion of the CRPAQS and mid-course review, discussed below.
Based on the above evaluation, as provided for in CAA section
179(d)(3), EPA is proposing to find that the attainment date of 2010
for the SJV is as expeditious as practicable due to the severity of
nonattainment and availability and feasibility of pollution control
measures. EPA expects, however, that the State and District will
continue to investigate opportunities to accelerate progress as new
control opportunities arise, and that the agencies will promptly adopt
and expeditiously implement any new measures found to be feasible in
the future.
3. Enforceable Commitments for Future Control Measures.
In addition to adopted regulations and enforceable commitments for
new, identified BACM for PM-10 and NO_X sources discussed in
section IV.D.2.b. above,\25\ the 2003 PM-10 Plan's attainment
demonstration relies on reductions from the District's commitment for
an Indirect Source Mitigation Program and the State's commitment for a
additional NO_X and PM-10 reductions from mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ The 2003 PM-10 Plan includes commitments for VOC and
SO_X sources; however, since we are concurring with the
District's NO_X/PM strategy, these commitments are not
necessary for attainment. We are, however, approving these
commitments under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(3) as strengthening
the SIP. The VOC and SO_X commitments are summarized in
section IV.E. above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Indirect Source Mitigation Program. The 2003 PM-10 Plan contains
an enforceable commitment by SJVUAPCD to adopt and implement a new
Indirect Source Mitigation Fee rule to require new development projects
to mitigate emissions onsite or contribute to a mitigation fund used
for offsite emission reductions. This rule will be adopted in 2004,
implemented in 2005, and will be designed to reduce PM-10 emissions
from 2010 baseline estimates as shown in the following table:

Estimated PM-10 Emission Reductions From Indirect Source Mitigation Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2010 Emission
Category Emissions reductions % Reduction
(tpd) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paved Road Dust................................................. 43.3 4.2 9.7
Unpaved Road Dust............................................... 6.6 1.2 18.2
Windblown Dust.................................................. 3.1 0.6 19.4
Unpaved Traffic Areas........................................... 1.0 0.2 20.0
-----------------
Total....................................................... 54.0 6.2 11.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This rule will also be designed to reduce 4.1 tpd of
NO_X. See pages 4-22, 4-23 and 4-40 to 4-42. EPA is proposing
to approve this commitment.
b. Commitment to Achieve Additional PM-10 and NO_X
Reductions in 2010. The 2003 PM-10 Plan also contains an enforceable
commitment by the State to adopt mobile source measures between 2002
and 2008 that will achieve an additional 10 tons/day of NO_X
and 0.5 tons/day of PM-10 by 2010. Measures being considered to achieve
these reductions are listed in the Plan. See 2003 PM-10 Plan, pages 4-
49 to 4-50. These measures are necessary for the attainment
demonstration. While the State has provided estimates of potential
reductions from each of the measures listed in the 2003 PM-10 Plan, the
State has committed to achieve the overall emission reductions. 2003
PM-10 Plan, page 4-49 to 4-50, Table 4-14. We are proposing, therefore,
to approve and make federally enforceable the State's commitment to
adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve 10 tpd of
NO_X and 0.5 tpd of PM-10 in 2010. We will review the State's
projected reductions from individual measures when they are fully
adopted by the State and will track progress to ensure that the State
is on a path to deliver the needed reductions.
c. Summary of Commitments to Adopt and Implement Control Measures
in the 2003 PM-10 Plan. The PM-10 and NO_X commitments,
including the adoption and implementation dates,\ 26\ \27\ and annual
and seasonal emissions reductions, relied upon by the attainment
demonstration in the Plan are summarized in the two tables below (See
section IV.D.2.b above and 2003 PM-10 Plan, pages 4-16 to 4-19, 4-23,
4-52 and 4-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ See footnote 17.
\27\ In addition, the District and State have committed to
submit rules and other measures to EPA in a timely manner. The
SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Resolution No. 03-06-07, #10, June
19, 2003 commits to ``* * * submit * * * rules and measures to the
California Air Resources Board within one month of adoption for
transmittal to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan.''
The State's submittal letter for the 2003 PM-10 Plan (August 19,
2003 letter from Catherine Witherspoon to Mr. Wayne Nastri) states
that ``[t]o ensure steady progress on SIP implementation, [the
State]
will * * * work closely with the U.S. EPA and District staff
to ensure timely rule submittal.'' CARB has entered into a protocol
with the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA) providing that CARB will complete its final review of rules
within 60 days and will submit approvable rules as a SIP revision as
part of quarterly submittals, or, in cases where there is an EPA
deadline, as soon as possible. (Revisions to CAPCOA-ARB Protocol,
Section III, adopted November 7, 1986, http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/
protocol.pdf). In compliance with these provisions, approvable
rules are submitted as SIP revisions to EPA within 6 months from air
district adoption and submittal. Therefore, EPA is interpreting the
statement in the State's submittal commitment as a State commitment
to submit SIP revisions from the SJVUAPCD to EPA within 6 months of
the District's submission of those revisions to CARB.

[[Page 5427]]

Enforceable Commitments for PM-10 Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2010
reductions reductions
Source category Adoption date Implementation date (annual) (seasonal)
(tpd) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Internal Combustion 4Q/04 and 7/1/05..... 3Q/05 and 1/1/06..... n/a n/a
Engines.
Cotton Gins....................... 4Q/04................ 2005................. 1.7 2.5
Ag CMP Program.................... April 2004........... July 2004............ 33.8 26.7
Fugitive PM-10, Regulation VIII September 2004....... September 2004....... 18.8 17.9
Sources.
Indirect Source Mitigation Program 2004................. 2005................. 6.2 5.7
State Mobile Sources.............. 2002-2008............ 2002-2008............ 0.5 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enforceable Commitments for NOX Control Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 2010
reductions reductions
Source category Adoption date Implementation date (annual) (seasonal)
(tpd) (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Internal Combustion 4Q/04 and 7/1/05..... 3Q/05 and 1/1/06..... <9.3 <9.3
Engines.
Indirect Source Mitigation Program 2004................. 2005................. 4.1 3.1
Manufacturing and Industrial Fuel 2Q/04, 4Q/04 and 4Q/ 2006, 2006 and 2004.. 2.6 3.1
Combustion (dryers, small boilers 04.
and water heaters).
Residential Space Heating......... 3Q/04................ 2020................. 0 0
Service and Commercial-Other Fuel 2Q/04, 4Q/04 and 4Q/ 2006, 2006 and 2004.. \1\ \1\
Combustion (dryers, small boilers 04.
and water heaters).
State Mobile Sources.............. 2002-2008............ 2002-2008............ 10 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Manufacturing and Industrial Fuel Combustion above.

d. Approvability of Enforceable Commitments. EPA believes,
consistent with past practice, that the CAA allows approval of
enforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances
exist that warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted
measures.\28\ \29\ Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant
consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA believes that three
factors should be considered in determining whether to approve the
enforceable commitment: (a) Whether the commitment addresses a limited
portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) whether the state is
capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) whether the commitment is
for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Commitments approved by EPA under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA are enforceable by the EPA and citizens under, respectively,
sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved
enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions
against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See,
e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J.
1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State
Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for
a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in
par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v.
South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments,
EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA
Section 179(a), which starts an 18-month period for the State to
correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are
imposed.
\29\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that each SIP ``shall
include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means or techniques * * * as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act,
which applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical to
section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these sections of the CAA is
quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ``means or techniques''
that EPA determines are ``necessary or appropriate'' to meet CAA
requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the
express allowance for ``schedules and timetables'' demonstrates that
Congress understood that all required controls might not have to be
in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
\30\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently
upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
172(c)(6) (see previous footnote) and the Agency's use and
application of the three factor test in approving enforceable
commitments in the Houston-Galveston ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et
al. v. U.S.E.P.A. et al., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21975 (5th Cir.
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an initial matter, EPA believes that circumstances in the SJV
warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments. The great bulk of
emission reductions needed for attainment comes from regulations
already fully adopted by the District, the State, or the Federal
government. These previously adopted measures include CARB regulations
governing area and mobile sources, SJV regulations governing stationary
sources, and Federal regulations such as standards that apply to diesel
engines and locomotives.
Moreover, EPA believes that the SJV rulemaking schedule is
proceeding as expeditiously as practicable and that it was not possible
for the District and State to complete the rule development and
adoption processes prior to plan submittal for the new, identified
NO_X and PM-10 control measures to which the plan commits and
therefore consideration of enforceable commitments is warranted. First,
because the vast majority of NO_X sources are already subject
to stringent, adopted rules, it is increasingly difficult to develop
regulations for the remaining universe of uncontrolled sources. Also,
the District is continuing its efforts to control direct PM-10 sources
which have been historically difficult to control due to the fact that
a large fraction of the sources are area-wide sources whose emissions
are directly related to growth in population and vehicle miles traveled
(2003 PM-10 Plan, pages 4-8 to 4-9). In addition, a

[[Page 5428]]

significant portion of the necessary PM-10 reductions are from
agricultural fugitive dust sources, a previously unregulated source in
the SJV. Since agricultural sources in the United States vary by
factors such as regional climate, soil type, growing season, crop type,
water availability and relation to urban centers, each PM-10
agricultural strategy is uniquely based on local circumstances. Unlike
many stationary sources, which can have many common design features,
whether located in California or Minnesota, agricultural sources and
activities vary greatly throughout the country. Finally, since the
State sources are already covered by BACM (see IV.D.2.a. above), any
additional controls from the State source categories would be beyond
BACM and difficult to achieve.
EPA has also determined that the submission of enforceable
commitments for the adoption of identified control measures necessary
to achieve attainment by 2010 will not interfere with the SJV's ability
to make reasonable progress toward attainment of the standard. The
majority of the enforceable commitments have adoption and
implementation dates by 2006 with incremental reductions from the
implementation dates until 2010 (see 2003 PM-10 Plan, page 4-52, 4-53).
As discussed above, after concluding that the circumstances warrant
consideration of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors
in determining whether to approve the submitted commitments. These
factors are satisfactorily addressed with respect to the District's and
the State's commitments.
(1) The Commitments Address a Limited Portion of the 2003 PM-10
Plan. The 2003 PM-10 Plan provides annual average and winter seasonal
inventories for NO_X and PM-10. See 2003 PM-10 Plan, pages 3-
35 to 3-37, 3-40 to 3-42 and Appendix D. The annual average inventories
(annual inventory) are representative of the annual PM-10 standard and
the winter seasonal inventories (seasonal inventory) are representative
of the 24-hour PM-10 standard.
As mentioned above, for NO_X, there is a steady decline
in emissions in both the annual and seasonal inventories from 1999
through 2010 (See 2003 PM-10 Plan, page 3-37).

Summary of 2003 PM-10 Plan's NOX Emissions Inventories
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual inventory................ 565.2 519.8 478.8 430.3 401.6
Seasonal inventory.............. 571.7 525.8 484.1 435.7 406.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This steady decline in emissions is attributable to reductions in
the State's mobile source programs (see section IV.D.2.a.) and from
previously adopted stationary and area source rules.\31\ 2003 PM-10
Plan, pages 3-9 and 3-12.\32\ In order to attain, the 2010
NO_X inventories, must be reduced by 45.3 tpd for the annual
average inventory and 44.9 tpd for the winter seasonal inventory. See
2003 PM-10 Plan, page 4-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ These previously adopted measures include CARB regulations
governing area and mobile sources, SJV regulations governing
stationary sources and Federal regulations such as standards that
apply to diesel engines and locomotives.
\32\ It is also important to note that there have been
significant reductions in NO_X emissions from 1990 to 2001
(796 tons/day to 547 tons/day). These significant reductions take
into account substantial growth in population and activity levels
and have resulted from the ongoing development and implementation of
stringent District, State and Federal requirements. 2003 PM-10 Plan,
pages 4-4 to 4-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2003 PM-10 Plan will achieve these emissions reductions through
a combination of enforceable commitments and already adopted measures.
During the period from 1999 to 2010, the annual and seasonal
inventories for NO_X shows a reduction of 163.6 tpd and 165.4
tpd, respectively. These significant reductions take into account
substantial future growth in population and activity levels and, as
mentioned above, have resulted from the ongoing development and
implementation of stringent District, State and Federal requirements.
In 2010, approximately 26 tpd of the annual inventory and 25.5 tpd of
the seasonal inventory are based on enforceable commitments. For both
the annual and seasonal inventories, the NO_X enforceable
commitments make up approximately 15-16% of the overall reductions
since 1999. EPA believes this limited portion of NO_X
reductions coming from enforceable commitments is acceptable.
The PM-10 inventories do not have the same steady decline exhibited
by the NO_X inventories due to the need to further refine the
backcasted inventories (see 2003 PM-10 Plan, page 4-8 to 4-9) and
difficulties in achieving and maintaining direct PM-10 reductions from
area-wide sources, especially from fugitive dust sources. The annual
and seasonal PM-10 inventories are summarized below.

Summary of 2003 PM-10 Plan's PM-10 Emissions Inventories
[Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2002 2005 2008 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual average inventory........ 324.7 329.5 335.8 340.5 350.1
Winter seasonal inventory....... 248.8 290.3 296.8 302.0 311.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to attain these standards by 2010, the District's
demonstration indicates that the annual PM-10 inventory must be reduced
by 66.4 tpd and the seasonal PM-10 inventory must be reduced by 73.7
tpd. See 2003 PM-10 Plan, page 4-52. Approximately 61 tpd (72%) of the
reductions needed from the annual inventory and 53.3 tpd (92%) of the
reductions needed for the seasonal inventory are based on enforceable
commitments. As shown above, a significant portion (33.8 tpd or 51% for
annual and 26.7 tpd or 36% for seasonal) of the needed reductions come

[[Page 5429]]

from the Ag CMP Program which controls agricultural fugitive dust
sources, a previously unregulated category. As discussed above,
measures for agricultural sources must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. The Ag CMP Program is an effort that is well under way as the
District has worked diligently with stakeholders (i.e., farmers, EPA,
CARB, and citizens) to develop the best available measures for the SJV.
An enforceable commitment is necessary at this time in order to allow
the additional time required to further assess the dust measures that
the District will establish for agricultural sources, including
determining the emissions reductions potential and the technical and
economic feasibility of the measures. In addition, the majority of the
PM-10 commitments have adoption and implementation dates in 2004. Given
the difficulties in controlling direct PM-10 in the SJV and the near
term adoption and implementation dates EPA believes the PM-10
reductions coming from enforceable commitments is acceptable.
(2) The State and District Are Capable of Fulfilling their
Commitment. In many cases the new measures that are the subject to
commitments are already undergoing rulemaking and have very near term
adoption and implementation dates and specific requirements. For
example, the enforceable commitment for the Ag CMP Program has an
adoption date of April 2004 and an implementation date of July 2004 and
specifically requires the development of a program that will require
farmers to submit CMP plans that will reduce PM-10 emissions to the
District (see section IV.D.2.(5)(i) above). Another example is the
enforceable commitment for Regulation VIII which has an adoption and
implementation date of September 2004 and provides a specific list of
new requirements (see section IV.D.2.(5)(ii) above).
Furthermore, EPA believes that the State will be able to meet their
enforceable commitment for 10 tpd of NO_X and 0.5 tpd of PM-
10 in 2010 from State mobile source measures. (2003 PM-10 Plan, page 4-
49 to 4-50.) Measures being considered by the State include: A pilot
program to replace or upgrade emission control systems on existing
passenger vehicles, Smog Check improvements, pursuing approaches to
clean up the existing and new truck/bus fleet, pursuing approaches to
clean up the existing heavy-duty off-road equipment fleet with retrofit
controls, cleaning up existing off-road gas equipment through retrofit
controls, and requiring zero emission forklifts where feasible. The
State has already devoted time and resources in the development of
feasible control approaches for most of these measures. Although the
potential control measures are complex and difficult, the State has a
long history of success in adopting new and challenging mobile source
controls and achieving projected emission reductions. The State's
record of accomplishment and the State's commitment of resources and
progress to date on these new measures assure us that the State will
meet its commitment in this plan.
Finally, we are confident that the District will be able to meet
the tonnage commitment in the 2003 PM-10 Plan because the District
makes a specific enforceable commitment that if it cannot achieve the
emissions reductions provided by the Plan, they will ``* * * adopt,
submit and implement substitute rules and measures that will achieve
equivalent reductions in the same adoption and implementation
timeframes.'' SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Resolution No. 03-06-07,
#10, June 19, 2003.
(3) The Commitments Are for a Reasonable and Appropriate Period of
Time. The adoption, implementation, and submittal dates for the new
control measures reflect a reasonable amount of time for the
development and implementation of each measure. In light of the above
commitments and their adoption and implementation dates and the
District's discussion of their rule development schedule (2003 PM-10
Plan, Chapter 4), EPA believes that the time frame for the commitments
is reasonable and appropriate.
For the above reasons, EPA is proposing to approve as one element
of the attainment demonstration in the 2003 PM-10 Plan the District's
enforceable commitments to adopt and implement the specified control
measures and the State's enforceable commitment to achieve additional
PM-10 and NO_X reductions from mobile sources. The PM-10 and
NO_X emission reductions that will result from these
commitments are necessary to attain the PM-10 standards by 2010, which
we find to be the most expeditious attainment date practicable. Based
on the previously adopted measures and these commitments, the 2003 PM-
10 Plan demonstrates that the SJV will achieve sufficient reductions to
attain the PM-10 standards by 2010. Final approval of these commitments
would make the commitments enforceable by EPA and by citizens.
4. Enforceable Commitment for a Mid-Course Review
The District has made an enforceable commitment ``* * * to conduct
a mid-course review that will include an evaluation of the modeling
from CRPAQS and the latest technical information (inventory, data,
monitoring, etc.) to determine the level of PM-10 and PM-10 precursor
emission reductions needed to attain the Federal PM-10 annual and 24-
hour standards. The mid-course review will also include a complete
reassessment of all Plan elements including the attainment
demonstration and control measures.* * * The District commits to adopt
and submit by March 31, 2006 a SIP revision based on this mid-course
review.'' SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Resolution No. 03-06-07,
#12, June 19, 2003. EPA is proposing to approve this commitment
as part of the attainment demonstration under CAA sections 179(d)(3)
and 189(d).
The commitment has been adopted by the District because the 2003
PM-10 Plan's attainment demonstration has limitations which are the
direct result of the shortage of key input data. This lack of input
data has resulted in some uncertainty regarding the amount and type
(i.e., which PM-10 precursors) of emissions reductions that will be
necessary to attain the PM-10 standards. However, the CRPAQS will
provide a more comprehensive and reliable data base for future PM-10
analyses.
The State expects that CRPAQS will provide more reliable modeling
based on more refined modeling techniques and improved input data. This
information should result in a more reliable determination of whether
the amount of emissions reductions required in the 2003 PM-10 Plan will
be sufficient for the SJV to attain the PM-10 standards expeditiously.
The information will be used to establish revised attainment targets
and motor vehicle budgets and to develop new control measures, if
necessary, in the 2006 SIP submission.
5. Summary of Attainment Demonstration
Based on receptor modeling and proportional rollback modeling, the
District's attainment demonstration for 2003 PM-10 Plan relies on
emissions reductions from previously adopted measures, commitments for
BACM measures, a commitment for the Indirect Source Mitigation program,
and a commitment for an additional reduction of 10 tpd of
NO_X and 0.5 tpd of PM-10 from State mobile sources. Also,
since

[[Page 5430]]

the modeling has limitations due to a shortage of key input data, the
Plan includes a commitment to submit a SIP revision by March 31, 2006
based on a mid-course review that will include an evaluation of the
modeling from CRPAQS and the latest technical information (inventory,
data, monitoring, etc.) to determine the level of emission reductions
necessary to attain. EPA is proposing to approve the Plan's attainment
demonstration modeling, all of the commitments necessary for attainment
and the mid-course review commitment as meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 179(d)(3) and 189(d).

G. Section 189(d) 5 Percent Requirement

As discussed above, areas such as the SJV which fail to meet their
attainment deadlines are subject to CAA section 189(d) which requires a
new attainment plan with ``* * * an annual reduction in PM-10 or PM-10
precursor emissions * * * of not less than 5 percent of the amount of
such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory prepared for
such area.''
Tables 7-1 and 7-2 of the 2003 PM-10 Plan provide two methods of
demonstrating a 5% annual reduction. The methods are different, but the
emissions of NO_X and PM-10 reduced each year are the same in
both.\33\ EPA does not believe that the method summarized in Table 7-1
satisfies the CAA section 189(d) 5% requirement because adding
percentages does not achieve the necessary 5% reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ As a result of the NO_X/PM strategy,
NO_X is the only PM-10 precursor used in the 5%
calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, EPA does believe that the Table 7-2 ``Alternative Method''
is an approvable method for meeting the section 189(d) 5% requirement.
This method:
? Achieves the 5% annual reduction of either PM-10
or PM-10 precursors from 2002 to 2010,
? Is consistent with the District's
NO_X/PM attainment strategy for PM-10 precursors; and
? Carries forward any reductions beyond 5% towards
calculating the 5% requirement for a future year.
Reliance on reductions in either PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions is
specifically provided for in section 189(d). Since the attainment
demonstration is based on a NO_X/PM strategy (see section
IV.A. above), EPA believes it is reasonable to calculate the percentage
of reductions required based upon NO_X reductions, and not to
require reductions in the other PM-10 precursors VOC, SO_X,
or ammonia for which there is either less benefit or high uncertainty
toward attaining the NAAQS. Finally, EPA believes it is reasonable and
beneficial to allow for any emissions reductions beyond the required 5%
in one year to be carried forward in order to encourage emissions
reductions as quickly as possible. Thus, the Table 7-2 Alternative
Method is an acceptable method for meeting the 5% requirement of CAA
section 189(d). A more detailed analysis of the annual emissions and
the 5% requirement is provided in the TSD. In order to ensure that the
5% requirement is met, EPA is proposing to approve as enforceable
emissions levels each of the yearly NO_X and PM-10 emissions
levels found in Table 7-2 of the 2003 PM-10 Plan and summarized below.

Summary of NOX and PM-10 Emission Levels Necessary for Satisfying the 5%
Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (tons/ PM-10
Year day) (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.......................................... 519.8 329.4
2003.......................................... 493.5 329.4
2004.......................................... 479.5 312.1
2005.......................................... 461.8 285.5
2006.......................................... 441.0 285.8
2007.......................................... 420.1 285.4
2008.......................................... 403.6 280.1
2009.......................................... 389.1 284.5
2010.......................................... 363.7 283.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Reasonable Further Progress

CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1) require nonattainment areas to
provide for reasonable further progress (RFP). Section 171(1) of the
Act defines RFP as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part [part D of
title I]
or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air
quality standard by the applicable date.'' The Addendum to the General
Preamble at 42016 explains that ``EPA will determine whether the annual
emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light of the
statutory objective to ensure timely attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.''
The 2003 PM-10 Plan implies that the RFP requirement is satisfied
by meeting the 5% requirement. 2003 PM-10 Plan, Chapter 7. As discussed
above, the 5% requirement is based on emission reductions in the annual
average inventory. However, RFP is a separate statutory requirement and
is be determined relative to attainment. Thus, in order to satisfy the
RFP requirement, there must be an analysis which shows that incremental
reductions towards attainment are being made for both the 24-hour and
annual standards. While this analysis is not explicitly provided by the
District in the 2003 PM-10 Plan, our evaluation of the attainment
demonstration coupled with the expected yearly emissions reductions
shows that RFP is being met. Based on our evaluation for both the 24-
hour and annual PM-10 standards below, we believe that the progress
achieved is reasonable in light of the Act's attainment goal and
therefore propose to approve the Plan as meeting the RFP requirements
in sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)(1).
The District's control strategy relies on reductions of PM-10
precursors and primary PM-10 for both the annual and the 24-hour PM-10
standards. For each standard, the most substantial reductions in PM-10
from the control strategy are from decreases of the concentration of
ammonium nitrate, vegetative burning and geological material. Smaller
reductions are achieved from reductions in motor vehicle exhaust, and
ammonium sulfate. There were slight increases in the concentrations of
organic carbon, and tires and brakes. The specific relationships
between the emission inventory and PM concentrations are documented in
the 2003 PM-10 Plan, Appendix N, for each 24-hour and annual PM-10
concentration above the standard.
1. Annual RFP Demonstration
The annual average inventory is representative of the annual
standard. As discussed in Chapter 7 of the 2003 PM-10 Plan and in
section I above, annual reductions of PM-10 or NO_X are being
achieved until the attainment year. Reductions of PM-10 and
NO_X in the annual average inventory should correspond to
annual incremental reductions towards the annual PM-10 standard.
2. 24-Hour RFP Demonstration
Relative to the PM-10 concentrations above the annual standard, the
24-hour PM-10 values have less contribution from geological material,
and a greater contribution from ammonium nitrate and vegetative
burning. Therefore, the control of PM-10 precursors and vegetative
burning is relatively more effective for the 24-hour standard than for
the annual standard. The 2003 PM-10 Plan provides for annual
incremental reductions in NO_X emissions (page 7-3, Table 7-
2), thus, this should help ensure that incremental reductions towards
the 24-hour PM-10 standard are being achieved.

[[Page 5431]]

I. Quantitative Milestones

CAA section 189(c)(1) also requires PM-10 plans demonstrating
attainment to contain quantitative milestones which are to be achieved
every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and which
demonstrate RFP. The 2003 PM-10 Plan commits to provide the first
quantitative milestone report for 2003 through 2005 (2003 PM-10 Plan,
page 7-4). Thus, the next quantitative milestone report will be due for
2006 through 2008.
In addition to the District's commitment to provide an RFP
Milestone Report on March 31, 2006 (90 days after the milestone date),
they have also committed to a ``mid-course review that will include an
evaluation of the modeling from CRPAQS and the latest technical
information (inventory, data, monitoring, etc.) to determine the level
of PM-10 and PM-10 precursor emission reductions needed to attain the
federal PM-10 annual and 24-hour standards. The mid-course review will
also include a complete reassessment of all Plan elements including the
attainment demonstration and control measures * * *. The District
commits to adopt and submit by March 31, 2006 a SIP revision based on
this mid-course review.'' (SJVUAPCD Governing Board, June 19, 2003,
Resolution, No. 03-06-07, paragraph 12.) EPA believes this mid-course
review commitment is a critical component in addressing the
quantitative milestone requirement.

V. Summary of Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(3) the
following elements of the 2003 PM-10 Plan as meeting the CAA
requirements applicable to serious PM-10 nonattainment areas that have
failed to meet their attainment date:
(1) EPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventories as
meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(3).
(2) EPA is proposing to approve the RACM/BACM demonstration for all
significant PM-10 and NO_X sources in the SJV as meeting the
requirements of sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B). Final approval
of this demonstration with respect to fugitive dust sources regulated
by SJVUAPCD Regulation VIII would terminate all sanction, FIP, and rule
disapproval implications of our February 26, 2003 action. 68 FR 8830.
(3) EPA is proposing to approve, as meeting the requirements of
sections 179(d)(3) and 189(d), (a) the attainment demonstration and
associated motor vehicle budgets; (b) commitments to adopt and
implement new, identified stationary, area and mobile source BACM to
reduce PM-10 and NO_X emissions; (c) a commitment for the
Indirect Source Mitigation Program (d) a commitment for 10 tpd of
NO_X and 0.5 tpd of PM-10 reductions from State mobile source
measures; (e) and the commitment to submit a SIP revision by March 31,
2006 based on a mid-course review that will include an evaluation of
the modeling from the CRPAQS and the latest technical information
(inventory data, monitoring, etc.) to determine whether the level of
emission reductions in the 2003 PM-10 Plan is sufficient to attain the
PM-10 standards.
(4) EPA is proposing to approve under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a)
as strengthening the SIP the commitments to adopt and implement VOC and
SO_X measures.
(5) EPA is proposing to approve the NO_X and PM-10
emissions levels necessary to meet the 5% annual reduction requirement
in section 189(d).
(6) EPA is proposing to approve the reasonable further progress
demonstration as meeting the requirements of section 172(c)(2) and
189(c)(1).
(7) EPA is proposing to approve the Plan as meeting the
quantitative milestones requirement in section 189(c)(1).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state plan implementing Federal standards,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: January 27, 2004.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 04-2264 Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for California- -San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment of the 24-Hour and Annual PM-10 Standards

Local Navigation