[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5412-5431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2264]



[[Page 5411]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 52



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; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules

[[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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c10135218130e150f3c190c1d521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdd1d293d9d2cfd4cefdd8cddc93dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a> 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 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#701c1f5e141f021903301500115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f4340014b405d465c6f4a5f4e01484059">[email protected]</span></a>.

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<INF>X</INF>/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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Motor vehicle budgets for transportation 
conformity;
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Emissions inventories for PM-10 and PM-10 
precursors;

[[Page 5413]]

    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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;
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> A demonstration that attainment will be achieved 
as expeditiously as practicable;
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> A demonstration that the CAA section 189(d) five 
percent requirement is met; and
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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/m<SUP>3</SUP>). The 24-hour PM-10 standard of 150 
[mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> 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<INF>X</INF>/PM Attainment Strategy

    The 2003 PM-10 Plan relies on reductions from sources of oxides of 
nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>), a PM-10 precursor, and directly emitted PM-
10 sources to achieve attainment (``NO<INF>X</INF>/PM strategy''). 
Other PM-10 precursors for the SJV include volatile organic compounds 
(VOC), oxides of sulfate (SO<INF>X</INF>) and ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>). 
The California Air Resources Board (CARB or the State) and SJVUAPCD 
have examined the effects of controlling VOC, SO<INF>X</INF> and 
NH<INF>3</INF> and have determined that additional VOC controls will 
not lead to PM-10 reductions throughout the SJV, that the 
SO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>/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<INF>X</INF>/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<INF>X</INF> and 
NH<INF>3</INF>, 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>. 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Analysis years after the 2010 attainment year.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> On-road mobile emission sources.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Trades using vehicle NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
reductions in excess of those needed to meet the NO<INF>X</INF> budget 
for that county.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Trades in one direction from NO<INF>X</INF> to 
direct PM-10.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> A trading ratio of 1.5 tpd NO<INF>X</INF> to 1 
tpd PM-10.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 1.5 tpd NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>/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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Trading between counties/subarea budgets.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Trading for any pollutant other than direct PM-
10 and the PM-10 precursor NO<INF>X</INF>.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Trading with sources other than on-road emission 
sources.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Trading that would interfere with meeting the 
NO<INF>X</INF> budget.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Use of the mechanism to supplement the 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Generate the estimates of NO<INF>X</INF> and PM-
10 emissions from the planned transportation network, using procedures 
consistent with the conformity rule (40 CFR part 93).
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Compare these estimates to the appropriate SIP 
budgets.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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<INF>X</INF> 
budget. This trade from the NO<INF>X</INF> subarea budget to the PM-10 
subarea budget can only occur if the estimated emissions of 
NO<INF>X</INF> from the planned transportation network are less than 
the NO<INF>X</INF> subarea budget. The 1.5 tpd NO<INF>X</INF> to 1 tpd 
PM-10 ratio would be used, as follows, to determine the NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions needed to offset the excess direct PM10 emissions:

(PM-10 estimate - PM-10 budget) * 1.5 = tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions needed to offset excess PM-10

    Based on this calculation, the NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> and PM-10 emissions from 
the planned transportation network are at or below the adjusted 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Inventory the sources of PM-10 and PM-10 
precursors.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Determine which source categories are 
significant by modeling their impacts on the 24-hour and annual PM-10 
standard.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Evaluate alternative control techniques and 
their technological feasibility.
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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.<SUP>12,13</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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/m<SUP>3</SUP>) from PM-10 and NO<INF>X</INF> sources on the 
worst exceedance days for both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 
standards.<SUP>14,15</SUP> The District then compared the emissions 
(tons) to the contribution levels ([mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP>) for both the 
annual and 24-hour PM-10 and NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> that contribute to 1 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> for 
the annual standard and 5 [mu]g/m<SUP>3</SUP> for the 24-hour standard 
on a county by county basis. The lowest PM-10 and NO<INF>X</INF> 
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<INF>X</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF>; however, since we are concurring 
with the District's NO<INF>X</INF>/PM strategy, an analysis of the 
significant source categories for VOC, SO<INF>X</INF> and 
NH<INF>3</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>. 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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--www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2004/2004.htm;
    (2) Large Off-Road Engine Regulations adopted 10/22/98--
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--www.arb.ca.gov/
regact/levii/levii.htm;
    (4) 1997 and Later Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines 
Standards, adopted 12/10/98--www.arb.ca.gov/regact/recreat/recreat.htm;
    (5) Exhaust Emission Standards for On-Road Motorcycles, adopted 12/
10/98--www.arb.ca.gov/regact/motorcyc/motorcyc.him;
    (6) Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines Standards, adopted 1/27/
00--www.arb.ca.gov/regact/ciengine/ciengine.htm;
    (7) Transit Bus Standards, adopted 1/27/00 and revised 10/24/02--
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--www.arb.ca.gov/regact/HDDE2007/HDDE2007.htm;
    (9) Spark-Ignition Inboard and Sterndrive Marine Engines, adopted 
7/26/01--www.arb.ca.gov/regact/marine01/marine01.htm;
    (10) On-Board Diagnostic II Regulations, adopted 4/25/02--
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/obd02/obd02.htm; and
    (11) LEV II 2002 Heavy-Duty Otto Cycle Engine Standards, adopted 
11/14/02--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 (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<INF>X</INF> and 4.4 
tpd PM-10) and unspecified agricultural products processing losses 
(6.2 tpd NO<INF>X</INF>) 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4701, 
Internal Combustion Engines--Phase 1, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4702, Internal 
Combustion Engines--Phase 2, limit emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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 <ls-thn-eq> 10 acres and
 and windblown sources).             commercial projects <ls-thn-eq> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, Glass Melting 
Furnaces, limits emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> source'' 
from 50 to 25 tons or more per year of NO<INF>X</INF>, 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. SJVUAPCD commits 
to adopt new rules that would establish NO<INF>X</INF> emission 
standards for dryers based on PUC-quality natural gas, low excess air, 
low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners and flue gas recirculation; require low 
excess air, low-NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> and 1.4 tpd of PM-10 in 
1999. The discussion above of NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. SJVUAPCD commits to adopt a new rule 
requiring that newly installed residential furnaces emit no more than 
40 nanograms NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4902, Residential 
Water Heaters, limits NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from residential gas-
fired water heaters in the San Joaquin Valley. This rule establishes a 
maximum NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> and 1.0 tpd of PM-10 in 
1999. SJVUAPCD has committed to adopt new rules that would establish 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards for dryers based on PUC-quality 
natural gas, low excess air, low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners and flue gas 
recirculation; require low excess air, low-NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and 
Process Heaters, limits emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 limits emissions 
of NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>, 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<INF>X</INF>, 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> Sources

    SJVUAPCD committed to adopt new or revised rules to reduce VOC and 
SO<INF>X</INF> emissions. A BACM demonstration is not needed for these 
emissions because, given the NO<INF>X</INF>/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<INF>X</INF> reductions 
are necessary. We are, however, proposing to approve the commitments 
for VOC and SO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> emissions by 5.0 tpd. See pages 4-22, 4-23, 
4-39 and 4-40.
7. Glass Manufacturing
    Rule 4354 also establishes NO<INF>X</INF> limits as described in 
section IV.D.2.b.6., Glass Manufacturing. This category is estimated to 
emit 4.2 tpd of SO<INF>X</INF> in 2006. SJVUAPCD commits to revise Rule 
4354 to establish SO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>/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<INF>X</INF> and 6.2 tons/day of PM-10 and 
an enforceable commitment by the State achieving 10 tons/day of 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> and NH<INF>3</INF>), 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 <greek-i> 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 <greek-i> 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<INF>X</INF>. The SJV needs significant reductions in PM-10 and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> and PM-10 reductions from mobile sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The 2003 PM-10 Plan includes commitments for VOC and 
SO<INF>X</INF> sources; however, since we are concurring with the 
District's NO<INF>X</INF>/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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>. 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<INF>X</INF> 
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<INF>X</INF> 
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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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, <greek-i>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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>, 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> enforceable 
commitments make up approximately 15-16% of the overall reductions 
since 1999. EPA believes this limited portion of NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions coming from enforceable commitments is acceptable.
    The PM-10 inventories do not have the same steady decline exhibited 
by the NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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, 
<greek-i>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<INF>X</INF> reductions from mobile sources. The PM-10 and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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, 
<greek-i>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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF>/PM strategy, 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Achieves the 5% annual reduction of either PM-10 
or PM-10 precursors from 2002 to 2010,
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> Is consistent with the District's 
NO<INF>X</INF>/PM attainment strategy for PM-10 precursors; and
    <bullet<ls-thn-eq> 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<INF>X</INF>/PM strategy (see section 
IV.A. above), EPA believes it is reasonable to calculate the percentage 
of reductions required based upon NO<INF>X</INF> reductions, and not to 
require reductions in the other PM-10 precursors VOC, SO<INF>X</INF>, 
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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> are being 
achieved until the attainment year. Reductions of PM-10 and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> emissions; (c) a commitment for the 
Indirect Source Mitigation Program (d) a commitment for 10 tpd of 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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<INF>X</INF> measures.
    (5) EPA is proposing to approve the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 (65 FR 67249, 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>