5412 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 294–0432, FRL–7617–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—

San Joaquin Valley PM–10 

Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan 

for Attainment of the 24-Hour and 

Annual PM–10 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the ‘‘2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards 

for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and 

Smaller,’’ submitted on August 19, 

2003, and Amendments to that plan 

submitted on December 30, 2003, as 

meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act) requirements applicable to the San 

Joaquin Valley, California PM–10 

nonattainment area (SJV). The SJV 

violates the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particulate 

matter of ten microns or less (PM–10) 

and is classified as a serious PM–10 

nonattainment area. 

As a serious PM–10 nonattainment 

area, the State must submit to EPA a 

plan that provides for, among other 

things, the implementation of best 

available control measures (BACM). In 

addition, because the serious area 

attainment deadline, December 31, 

2001, has passed, the plan must provide 

for expeditious attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS and for an annual reduction in 

PM–10 or PM–10 precursors emissions 

of not less than five percent until 

attainment.

DATES: Comments on this proposal must 

be received by March 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Doris Lo, 

Planning Office (AIR2), EPA Region 9, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. Comments may also 

be submitted electronically to 

lo.doris@epa.gov or through hand 

delivery/courier. 

A copy of the docket is available for 

public inspection at EPA’s Region 9 at 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105, office during normal 

business hours. 

Electronic Availability 

This rulemaking and the TSD for this 

rulemaking are available as electronic 

files on EPA’s Region 9 Web site at 

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), U.S. 

EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California, 94105. (415) 

972–3959, e-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposal 

II. PM–10 Air Quality Planning in the SJV 

Area 

III. Overview of the CAA’s Planning 

Requirements for the SJV Serious PM–10 

Nonattainment Area 

A. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

B. Emissions Inventories 

C. Best Available Control Measures for 

Sources of PM–10 

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

for Sources of PM–10 

E. Major Stationary Sources of PM–10 

Precursors 

F. Section 189(d) Attainment 

Demonstration and 5% Requirement 

G. Reasonable Further Progress and 

Quantitative Milestones 

IV. The 2003 PM–10 Plan’s Compliance with 

the CAA’s Requirements 

A. Overview of the Plan’s NOX/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 NOX 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 SOX 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 NOX 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 MidCourse 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:

• Motor vehicle budgets for 

transportation conformity; 

• Emissions inventories for PM–10 

and PM–10 precursors; 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5413

2EPA 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 (μg/m3). The 24-hour 

PM–10 standard of 150 μg/m3 is attained if samples 

taken for 24-hour periods have no more than one 

expected exceedance per year, averaged over 3 

years. See 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K. 

Breathing particulate matter can cause significant 

health effects, including an increase in respiratory 

illness and premature death.

3The 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.

4The section 189(d) requirements are also 

referred to hereafter as the ‘‘5% attainment plan,’’

or the ‘‘section 189(d) 5% requirement.’’

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 

Continued

• A demonstration that reasonably 

available and best available control 

measures (RACM and BACM) will be 

expeditiously implemented for all 

significant sources of PM–10 and PM–

10 precursors; 

• A demonstration that attainment 

will be achieved as expeditiously as 

practicable; 

• A demonstration that the CAA 

section 189(d) five percent requirement 

is met; and 

• A demonstration that reasonable 

further progress (RFP) and quantitative 

milestones will be achieved. 

Final action approving the RACM/

BACM demonstration for fugitive dust 

sources regulated by the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD or District) 

Regulation VIII would terminate all 

sanction, Federal implementation plan 

(FIP) and rule disapproval implications 

of our February 26, 2003, action on 

Regulation VIII. 68 FR 8830. 

We describe our proposed actions and 

provide an evaluation of the Plan and 

Plan Amendments below. Additional 

details of our evaluation may be found 

in the technical support document 

(TSD) for this proposed rule (‘‘EPA’s 

Technical Support Document for the 

San Joaquin Valley, California, 2003 

PM–10 Plan and 2003 PM–10 Plan 

Amendments,’’ January 27, 2004). A 

copy of the TSD can be downloaded 

from our Web site or obtained by emailing, 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

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).

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 

5414 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 

1994).

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.

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 NOX/PM 

Attainment Strategy 

The 2003 PM–10 Plan relies on 

reductions from sources of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), a PM–10 precursor, and 

directly emitted PM–10 sources to 

achieve attainment (‘‘NOX/PM 

strategy’’). Other PM–10 precursors for 

the SJV include volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), oxides of sulfate 

(SOX) and ammonia (NH3). The 

California Air Resources Board (CARB 

or the State) and SJVUAPCD have 

examined the effects of controlling VOC, 

SOX and NH3 and have determined that 

additional VOC controls will not lead to 

PM–10 reductions throughout the SJV, 

that the SOX 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 NOX/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 NOX/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, SOX and 

NH3, do not contribute significantly to 

PM–10 levels which exceed the 

standard in the SJV. 

B. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

One of the primary tests for 

conformity is to show that 

transportation plans and improvement 

programs will not result in motor 

vehicle emissions greater than the levels 

needed to make progress toward and to 

meet the air quality standards. The 

motor vehicle emissions levels needed 

to make progress toward and to meet the 

air quality standards are set in the area’s 

applicable SIP and are known as the 

‘‘motor vehicle emissions budgets.’’

Emissions budgets are established for 

specific years and specific pollutants 

and precursors. See 40 CFR 93.118(a).

Before an emissions budget in a 

submitted SIP revision may be used in 

a conformity determination, we must 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5415

7When 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.

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 NOX

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 NOX. 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX

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.

5416 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

8See page 2 of the August 19, 2003, letter from 

Catherine Witherspoon to Wayne Nastri, 

transmitting the 2003 PM–10 Plan.

9The 1.5 tpd NOX 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 NOX/

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.

MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS

[Tons/day] 

County 

SJV 2003 PM–10 Plan 

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).

3. Trading Mechanism 

Transportation Conformity is 

demonstrated for each county in the SJV 

when emissions for both PM–10 and 

NOX 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 

NOX to PM–10 budgets. Section 

93.124(c) allows trading among budgets 

for the purposes of conformity if there 

is an approved mechanism in the SIP to 

allow trading to take place. The 

provision in section 93.124(c) states 

that:

‘‘[a] conformity demonstration shall not 

trade emissions among budgets which the 

applicable implementation plan (or 

implementation plan submission) allocates 

for different pollutants or precursors, or 

among budgets allocated to motor vehicles 

and other sources, unless the implementation 

plan establishes appropriate mechanisms for 

such trades.’’

Page 3–16 to 3–17 of the 2003 PM–10 

Plan provides a general discussion of 

how a trading mechanism could be used 

for determining transportation 

conformity with the plan’s budgets after 

2010. On December 30, 2003, the 

District provided, as part of the 2003 

PM–10 Plan Amendment, additional 

information which provides details on 

how the trading mechanism will be 

implemented (December 18, 2003, letter 

from David Crow to Deborah Jordan). 

The trading mechanism will be 

implemented with the following 

criteria. The trading applies only to: 

• Analysis years after the 2010 

attainment year. 

• On-road mobile emission sources.

• Trades using vehicle NOX emission 

reductions in excess of those needed to 

meet the NOX budget for that county. 

• Trades in one direction from NOX

to direct PM–10. 

• A trading ratio of 1.5 tpd NOX to 1 

tpd PM–10.9

• Transportation conformity 

determinations in San Joaquin Valley 

for purposes of showing conformity to 

the budgets in the 2003 PM–10 

attainment demonstration. 

Not allowed are: 

• Trading between counties/subarea 

budgets. 

• Trading for any pollutant other than 

direct PM–10 and the PM–10 precursor 

NOX. 

• Trading with sources other than onroad emission sources. 

• Trading that would interfere with 

meeting the NOX budget. 

• Use of the mechanism to 

supplement the NOX budget with excess 

reductions in the direct PM–10 budget. 

In practice, in a conformity analysis 

for years after 2010, an MPO in the SJV 

would follow these steps: 

• Generate the estimates of NOX and 

PM–10 emissions from the planned 

transportation network, using 

procedures consistent with the 

conformity rule (40 CFR part 93). 

• Compare these estimates to the 

appropriate SIP budgets. 

• If one or both of the budgets are not 

met, identify and evaluate potential 

control measures that could achieve 

additional reductions (e.g., feasibility 

analysis). This step could include 

examination of expanded 

implementation of control measures 

similar to those used in the SIP (e.g., 

paving unpaved roads) if included and 

funded in the Regional Transportation 

Plan. 

• If, after including reductions from 

additional measures, the direct PM–10 

budget still cannot be met, adjust (i.e., 

increase) the PM–10 subarea budget by 

trading from the NOX budget. This trade 

from the NOX subarea budget to the 

PM–10 subarea budget can only occur if 

the estimated emissions of NOX from 

the planned transportation network are 

less than the NOX subarea budget. The 

1.5 tpd NOX to 1 tpd PM–10 ratio would 

be used, as follows, to determine the 

NOX reductions needed to offset the 

excess direct PM10 emissions:

(PM–10 estimate ¥ PM–10 budget) * 1.5 

= tpd of NOX reductions needed to 

offset excess PM–10

Based on this calculation, the NOX

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 NOX and PM–10 emissions 

from the planned transportation 

network are at or below the adjusted 

NOX and direct PM–10 budgets. For 

each analysis year after 2010, and in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5417

10As 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.

11CAA 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.

12CAA 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.

13Additional 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).

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 NOX budgets will return to the 

subarea emission budgets in the 2003 

PM–10 SIP. Any new conformity 

determination would have to repeat the 

steps identified above to determine if 

further trading is appropriate. 

EPA believes that the 2003 PM–10 

Plan has provided an approvable trading 

mechanism for determining 

transportation conformity after 2010. 

EPA is proposing to approve the trading 

mechanism and all of the criteria 

included in the letter submitted as part 

of the 2003 PM–10 Plan as enforceable 

components of the program. 

C. Emissions Inventories 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

all plan submittals to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the nonattainment area. Since 

the San Joaquin Valley exceeds both the 

24-hour and annual PM–10 standards, 

representative emission inventories are 

needed for both standards. The District 

chose the year 1999 as the base year for 

the 2003 PM–10 Plan since it was the 

most complete emission inventory 

available. This base year inventory 

meets the CAA requirement for a 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

inventory and is used as the basis for 

forecasting future year inventories and 

for developing average annual, seasonal 

and modeling inventories. (See Chapter 

3, 2003 PM–10 Plan.) 

The 2003 PM–10 Plan’s average 

annual inventory represents the 

emissions on an average day in a year 

and is based on the SJV’s yearly 

emissions. The average annual 

inventory is used to evaluate the annual 

PM–10 problem. 

The 2003 PM–10 Plan also include 

seasonal inventories for fall and winter. 

The seasonal inventories were 

developed to evaluate the 24-hour PM–

10 problem. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

inventories in the 2003 PM–10 Plan as 

meeting the CAA 172(c)(3) requirement. 

A more detailed discussion of the Plan’s 

inventories can be found in the TSD. 

D. Implementation of Reasonably and 

Best Available Control Measures

CAA section 189(b)(1)(B) requires 

serious area PM–10 plans to provide for 

the implementation of BACM, including 

BACT, within four years of 

reclassification to serious.10 For the SJV, 

this date was January 8, 1997. Since that 

date has passed, BACM must now be 

implemented as expeditiously as 

practicable. Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 

687 (9th Cir. 1990). The General 

Preamble and Addendum provide EPA’s 

preliminary guidance on how to 

determine what is a BACM level of 

control. The Addendum provides the 

following guidance in discussing 

BACM: 

• BACM is considered to be a higher 

level of control than RACM 11 and is 

defined as being, among other things, 

the maximum degree of emissions 

reduction achievable from a source or 

source category which is determined on 

a case-by-case basis, considering energy, 

economic and environmental impacts. 

Addendum at 42010, 42013.

• BACM should emphasize 

prevention rather than remediation (e.g., 

preventing track out at construction 

sites rather than simply requiring clean 

up of tracked out dirt). Addendum at 

42011, 42013. 

• BACM must be implemented for all 

categories of sources in serious areas 

unless the State adequately 

demonstrates that a particular source 

category does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

PM–10 standards. A source category is 

presumed to contribute significantly to 

a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS if its 

PM–10 impact at the location of the 

expected violation would exceed

5 μg/m3. 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 μg/m3. Addendum at 42011, 42012. 

• In contrast to RACM, BACM 

determinations are to be based more on 

the feasibility of implementing 

measures rather than on an analysis of 

the area’s attainment needs. Addendum 

at 42012. 

The Addendum then discusses the 

following steps for determining BACM. 

Addendum at 42012–42014.

• Inventory the sources of PM–10 and 

PM–10 precursors. 

• Determine which source categories 

are significant by modeling their 

impacts on the 24-hour and annual PM–

10 standard. 

• Evaluate alternative control 

techniques and their technological 

feasibility. 

• Evaluate the costs of control 

measures or their economic feasibility.

Once these analyses are complete, the 

BACM must be turned into an 

enforceable rule or commitment to 

ensure BACM implementation. We use 

these steps as guidelines in our 

evaluation of the 2003 PM–10 Plan 

below. Finally, the Addendum provides 

examples of determining BACM and 

also discusses the selection of BACT for 

stationary sources.12,13

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 

5418 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

14The 2003 PM–10 Plan addresses de minimis

levels for VOC, SOX and NH3; however, since we 

are concurring with the District’s NOX/PM strategy, 

an analysis of the significant source categories for 

VOC, SOX and NH3 is not necessary and is not 

addressed further in connection with BACM. See

discussion in section IV.A. above.

15The CRPAQS program as well as the routine 

PM–10 monitoring network provided the necessary 

information on contribution levels from PM–10 and 

NOX. 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.

District used receptor modeling to 

determine the contribution levels (in μg/

m3) from PM–10 and NOX sources on 

the worst exceedance days for both the 

annual and 24-hour PM–10 

standards.14,15 The District then 

compared the emissions (tons) to the 

contribution levels (μg/m3) for both the 

annual and 24-hour PM–10 and NOX

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 NOX

that contribute to 1 μg/m3 for the annual 

standard and 5 μg/m3 for the 24-hour 

standard on a county by county basis. 

The lowest PM–10 and NOX 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).

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 NOX 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 NOX 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5419

16Pages 4–16 and 8–2 explain that emission 

estimates from agricultural crop processing losses 

(3.1 tpd NOX and 4.4 tpd PM–10) and unspecified 

agricultural products processing losses (6.2 tpd 

NOX) 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.

17Where 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.

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.

(1) Agricultural Irrigation Internal 

Combustion Engines. This category is 

estimated to emit 17.4 tpd NOX 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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX emission reductions 

respectively. See pages 4–22, 4–23 and 

4–46 to 4–48.

(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 NOX in 1999. SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4701, Internal Combustion 

Engines—Phase 1, and SJVUAPCD Rule 

4702, Internal Combustion Engines—

Phase 2, limit emissions of NOX 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 sparkignited 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 NOX emission limits for sparkignited IC engines to fulfill Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

(BARCT). BARCT is a California 

requirement that is defined similarly to 

Federal BACT. The NOX 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 NOX 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 

5420 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

18Technical 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.

19Appendix 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.

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 NOX 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 nonagricultural 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

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.

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% highestADT 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 ≥ 20 

trips per day by 3-axle vehicles. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5421

SUMMARY OF REGULATION VIII MEASURES—Continued

Source category Adopted or committed measure 

Committed measure requires removal of trackout extending ≥ 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, non-agricultural).Committed measure requires all new 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 ≥ 26 annual ADT. 

Committed measure limits vehicle speeds to 25 mph. 

Unpaved roads (agricultural) ............................... Committed measure requires control of roads on days they receive ≥ 75 vehicle trips and/or ≥

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 public and private, 

nonagricultural).

Committed measure requires stabilization of unpaved parking areas with ≥ 50 annual ADT 

and/or on days they receive ≥ 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 (agricultural) ........ Committed measure requires control of parking/traffic areas with ≥ 50 annual ADT and/or on 

days they receive ≥ 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, industrial (incl. 

earthmoving, bulk materials handling/storage 

and windblown sources).

Committed measure requires Dust Control Plans for residential projects > 10 acres and commercial projects > 5 acres and District notification of earthmoving projects ≥ 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 storage piles and 

trackout.

Adopted measure requires application 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 ≥ 100 cubic yards to be covered or stabilized. 

Committed measure to adopt California Vehicle Code trackout removal requirements. 

Vacant disturbed land (non-agricultural) ............. Committed measure to require stabilization of urban vacant lots ≥ 0.5 acres with ≥ 1,000 sq. 

ft. of disturbed surface. Applicable rural vacant lot size is ≥ 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 

Rule 

2010 

Emissions

(tpd) 

2010 

Emission 

reductions

(tpd) 

% Reduction 

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 

NOX in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4354, 

Glass Melting Furnaces, limits 

emissions of NOX and other pollutants 

from glass melting furnaces in the San

5422 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 NOX source’’ from 50 to 25 tons 

or more per year of NOX, 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 NOX 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 NOX in 1999. 

SJVUAPCD commits to adopt new rules 

that would establish NOX emission 

standards for dryers based on PUCquality natural gas, low excess air, lowNOX burners and flue gas recirculation; 

require low excess air, low-NOX 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 NOX

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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX and 1.4 tpd of PM–

10 in 1999. The discussion above of 

NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 

NOX in 1999. SJVUAPCD commits to 

adopt a new rule requiring that newly 

installed residential furnaces emit no 

more than 40 nanograms NOX 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 NOX 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 

NOX in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4902, 

Residential Water Heaters, limits NOX

emissions from residential gas-fired 

water heaters in the San Joaquin Valley. 

This rule establishes a maximum NOX

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 

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

by 2.24 tons per day by 2003. 

The requirements in Rule 4902 are 

among the most stringent in the country 

and the NOX 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 NOX and 

1.0 tpd of PM–10 in 1999. SJVUAPCD 

has committed to adopt new rules that 

would establish NOX emission 

standards for dryers based on PUCquality natural gas, low excess air, lowNOX burners and flue gas recirculation; 

require low excess air, low-NOX 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 NOX

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 

NOX in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, 

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters, limits 

emissions of NOX 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 

NOX in 1999. SJVUAPCD Rule 4703 

limits emissions of NOX 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 

NOX, depending on size, for natural gas 

fired units) generally established RACTlevel 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 NOX, 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 NOX

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 SOX Sources 

SJVUAPCD committed to adopt new 

or revised rules to reduce VOC and SOX

emissions. A BACM demonstration is 

not needed for these emissions because, 

given the NOX/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 SOX

reductions are necessary. We are, 

however, proposing to approve the 

commitments for VOC and SOX

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 

5424 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

20PMSDG, 4.1 Introduction.

21The 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 

NOX and NH3), we are not relying on it for our 

proposed approval of the Plan’s attainment 

demonstration. For more information, see the TSD 

for this rulemaking. 

Given that the guidance documents for PM–10 do 

not indicate how to model secondary pollutant 

formation, EPA must evaluate submitted PM–10 

SIPs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the air 

quality facts of each area. EPA has evaluated the 

attainment demonstration in the 2003 PM–10 Plan 

based on the Agency’s PM–10 guidance documents, 

PMSDG and GAQM. EPA is currently developing 

guidance for demonstrating attainment of the PM–

2.5 standard, 40 CFR 50.7, that may ultimately 

provide more specificity regarding the models to be 

used for secondary particulates.

22PMSDG, Table 4–2 Recommended Approaches 

for PM10 Source Apportionment.

23PMSDG, 4.4 Receptor Models for Estimation 

PM10 Concentrations.

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 commercialother fuel combustion), is also projected 

to reduce SOX 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 SOX 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 SOX emissions by 

5.0 tpd. See pages 4–22, 4–23, 4–39 and 

4–40. 

7. Glass Manufacturing 

Rule 4354 also establishes NOX limits 

as described in section IV.D.2.b.6., Glass 

Manufacturing. This category is 

estimated to emit 4.2 tpd of SOX in 

2006. SJVUAPCD commits to revise 

Rule 4354 to establish SOX 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 SOX 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 commercialother fuel combustion), is also projected 

to reduce SOX 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 NOX/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 NOX and 6.2 tons/day of PM–10 

and an enforceable commitment by the 

State achieving 10 tons/day of NOX 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.

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5425

24PMSDG, p. 4–11.

scanning electron or optical microscopy 

are methods, not models.24

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

Site name Design value 

2010 without 

additional

reductions 

2010 with

additional

reductions 

Bakersfield—California Ave ......................................................................................................... 190 186 137 

Bakersfield—Golden # 2 .............................................................................................................. 205 203 151 

Clovis ........................................................................................................................................... 155 145 120 

Corcoran, Patterson Ave ............................................................................................................. 174 185 143 

174 197 138 

Fresno—Drummond .................................................................................................................... 186 181 140 

Fresno—First St ........................................................................................................................... 193 182 144 

Hanford, Irwin St .......................................................................................................................... 185 189 143 

Modesto, 14th Street ................................................................................................................... 158 144 121 

Oildale, 3311 Manor St ................................................................................................................ 158 151 120 

Turlock, 900 Minaret Street ......................................................................................................... 157 162 116 

SIMULATED FUTURE YEAR ANNUAL PM–10 VALUES

Site name Design value 

2010 without 

additional

reductions 

2010 with

additional

reductions 

Bakersfield—Golden # 2 .............................................................................................................. 57 58 49 

Fresno—Drummond .................................................................................................................... 50 50 45 

Hanford—Irwin St ........................................................................................................................ 53 52 47 

Visalia—Church St ....................................................................................................................... 54 52 46 

Using the District’s analysis, 

attainment is demonstrated for both the 

24-hour and annual PM–10 standards. 

See 2003 PM–10 Plan, p. 6–8 to 6–9. 

Each site is projected to have design 

concentrations at or below the PM–10 

standards in 2010. We believe that the 

attainment demonstration approach in 

the 2003 PM–10 Plan satisfies EPA’s 

requirements for demonstrating 

attainment of the 24-hour and annual 

PM–10 standards. 

2. Attainment Date 

The SJV is one of only eight PM–10 

nonattainment areas in the country. For 

urban areas nationwide, the SJV has the 

third highest average annual mean PM–

10 concentration (ranking only behind 

Phoenix, Arizona and the greater Los 

Angeles area.) The PM–10 

concentrations recorded over the last 

few years at the Corcoran and 

Bakersfield monitoring sites have been 

significantly above the Federal standard. 

The PM–10 problem in the SJV is 

complex, caused by both direct PM–10 

and reactive precursors, and 

compounded by the topographical and 

meteorological conditions for the area. 

2003 PM–10 Plan, Chapter 2. 

As discussed in section IV.A. above, 

the District’s strategy for attaining the 

PM–10 standard relies on reductions of 

PM–10 and NOX. The SJV needs 

significant reductions in PM–10 and 

NOX 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 NOX 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 

5426 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

25The 2003 PM–10 Plan includes commitments 

for VOC and SOX sources; however, since we are 

concurring with the District’s NOX/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 

SOX commitments are summarized in section IV.E. 

above.

26See footnote 17. 

27 In addition, the District and State have 

committed to submit rules and other measures to 

EPA in a timely manner. The SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board, Resolution No. 03–06–07, #10, June 19, 2003 

commits to ‘‘* * * submit * * * rules and 

measures to the California Air Resources Board 

within one month of adoption for transmittal to 

EPA as a revision to the State Implementation 

Plan.’’ The State’s submittal letter for the 2003 PM–

10 Plan (August 19, 2003 letter from Catherine 

Witherspoon to Mr. Wayne Nastri) states that ‘‘[t]o 

ensure steady progress on SIP implementation, [the 

State] will * * * work closely with the U.S. EPA 

and District staff to ensure timely rule submittal.’’

CARB has entered into a protocol with the 

California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (CAPCOA) providing that CARB will 

complete its final review of rules within 60 days 

and will submit approvable rules as a SIP revision 

as part of quarterly submittals, or, in cases where 

there is an EPA deadline, as soon as possible. 

(Revisions to CAPCOA–ARB Protocol, Section III, 

adopted November 7, 1986, http://www.arb.ca.gov/

drdb/protocol.pdf). In compliance with these 

provisions, approvable rules are submitted as SIP 

revisions to EPA within 6 months from air district 

adoption and submittal. Therefore, EPA is 

interpreting the statement in the State’s submittal 

commitment as a State commitment to submit SIP 

revisions from the SJVUAPCD to EPA within 6 

months of the District’s submission of those 

revisions to CARB.

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 NOX

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 NOX and 

PM–10 reductions from mobile sources.

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

Category 

2010

Emissions

(tpd) 

2010 Emission 

reductions

(tpd) 

% Reduction 

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 NOX. 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 NOX 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 NOX 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 

NOX 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 NOX 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).

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5427

28Commitments 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. 

29CAA 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.

30The 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).

ENFORCEABLE COMMITMENTS FOR PM–10 CONTROL MEASURES

Source category Adoption date Implementation date 

2010

reductions

(annual)

(tpd) 

2010

reductions

(seasonal)

(tpd) 

Agricultural Internal Combustion 

Engines.

4Q/04 and 7/1/05 ........................... 3Q/05 and 1/1/06 ........................... n/a n/a 

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 

Sources.

September 2004 ............................ September 2004 ............................ 18.8 17.9 

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

Source category Adoption date Implementation date 

2010

reductions

(annual)

(tpd) 

2010

reductions

(seasonal)

(tpd) 

Agricultural Internal Combustion 

Engines.

4Q/04 and 7/1/05 ........................... 3Q/05 and 1/1/06 ........................... <9.3 <9.3 

Indirect Source Mitigation Program 2004 ............................................... 2005 ............................................... 4.1 3.1 

Manufacturing and Industrial Fuel 

Combustion (dryers, small boilers and water heaters).

2Q/04, 4Q/04 and 4Q/04 ............... 2006, 2006 and 2004 ..................... 2.6 3.1 

Residential Space Heating ............. 3Q/04 ............................................. 2020 ............................................... 0 0 

Service and Commercial-Other 

Fuel Combustion (dryers, small 

boilers and water heaters).

2Q/04, 4Q/04 and 4Q/04 ............... 2006, 2006 and 2004 ..................... 1 1

State Mobile Sources ..................... 2002–2008 ..................................... 2002–2008 ..................................... 10 10 

1See 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

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 NOX

and PM–10 control measures to which 

the plan commits and therefore 

consideration of enforceable 

commitments is warranted. First, 

because the vast majority of NOX

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 

5428 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

31These 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 NOX 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.

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 NOX 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 NOX, 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 NOX

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.

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 NOX 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 NOX

enforceable commitments make up 

approximately 15–16% of the overall 

reductions since 1999. EPA believes this 

limited portion of NOX reductions 

coming from enforceable commitments 

is acceptable.

The PM–10 inventories do not have 

the same steady decline exhibited by the 

NOX 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 

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

NOX and 0.5 tpd of PM–10 in 2010 from 

State mobile source measures. (2003 

PM–10 Plan, page 4–49 to 4–50.) 

Measures being considered by the State 

include: A pilot program to replace or 

upgrade emission control systems on 

existing passenger vehicles, Smog Check 

improvements, pursuing approaches to 

clean up the existing and new truck/bus 

fleet, pursuing approaches to clean up 

the existing heavy-duty off-road 

equipment fleet with retrofit controls, 

cleaning up existing off-road gas 

equipment through retrofit controls, and 

requiring zero emission forklifts where 

feasible. The State has already devoted 

time and resources in the development 

of feasible control approaches for most 

of these measures. Although the 

potential control measures are complex 

and difficult, the State has a long history 

of success in adopting new and 

challenging mobile source controls and 

achieving projected emission 

reductions. The State’s record of 

accomplishment and the State’s 

commitment of resources and progress 

to date on these new measures assure us 

that the State will meet its commitment 

in this plan. 

Finally, we are confident that the 

District will be able to meet the tonnage 

commitment in the 2003 PM–10 Plan 

because the District makes a specific 

enforceable commitment that if it 

cannot achieve the emissions reductions 

provided by the Plan, they will ‘‘* * * 

adopt, submit and implement substitute 

rules and measures that will achieve 

equivalent reductions in the same 

adoption and implementation 

timeframes.’’ SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board, Resolution No. 03–06–07, #10, 

June 19, 2003. 

(3) The Commitments Are for a 

Reasonable and Appropriate Period of 

Time. The adoption, implementation, 

and submittal dates for the new control 

measures reflect a reasonable amount of 

time for the development and 

implementation of each measure. In 

light of the above commitments and 

their adoption and implementation 

dates and the District’s discussion of 

their rule development schedule (2003 

PM–10 Plan, Chapter 4), EPA believes 

that the time frame for the commitments 

is reasonable and appropriate.

For the above reasons, EPA is 

proposing to approve as one element of 

the attainment demonstration in the 

2003 PM–10 Plan the District’s 

enforceable commitments to adopt and 

implement the specified control 

measures and the State’s enforceable 

commitment to achieve additional PM–

10 and NOX reductions from mobile 

sources. The PM–10 and NOX 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 MidCourse Review 

The District has made an enforceable 

commitment ‘‘* * * to conduct a midcourse review that will include an 

evaluation of the modeling from 

CRPAQS and the latest technical 

information (inventory, data, 

monitoring, etc.) to determine the level 

of PM–10 and PM–10 precursor 

emission reductions needed to attain the 

Federal PM–10 annual and 24-hour 

standards. The mid-course review will 

also include a complete reassessment of 

all Plan elements including the 

attainment demonstration and control 

measures.* * * The District commits to 

adopt and submit by March 31, 2006 a 

SIP revision based on this mid-course 

review.’’ SJVUAPCD Governing Board, 

Resolution No. 03–06–07, #12, June 19, 

2003. EPA is proposing to approve this 

commitment as part of the attainment 

demonstration under CAA sections 

179(d)(3) and 189(d). 

The commitment has been adopted by 

the District because the 2003 PM–10 

Plan’s attainment demonstration has 

limitations which are the direct result of 

the shortage of key input data. This lack 

of input data has resulted in some 

uncertainty regarding the amount and 

type (i.e., which PM–10 precursors) of 

emissions reductions that will be 

necessary to attain the PM–10 

standards. However, the CRPAQS will 

provide a more comprehensive and 

reliable data base for future PM–10 

analyses. 

The State expects that CRPAQS will 

provide more reliable modeling based 

on more refined modeling techniques 

and improved input data. This 

information should result in a more 

reliable determination of whether the 

amount of emissions reductions 

required in the 2003 PM–10 Plan will be 

sufficient for the SJV to attain the PM–

10 standards expeditiously. The 

information will be used to establish 

revised attainment targets and motor 

vehicle budgets and to develop new 

control measures, if necessary, in the 

2006 SIP submission. 

5. Summary of Attainment 

Demonstration 

Based on receptor modeling and 

proportional rollback modeling, the 

District’s attainment demonstration for 

2003 PM–10 Plan relies on emissions 

reductions from previously adopted 

measures, commitments for BACM 

measures, a commitment for the Indirect 

Source Mitigation program, and a 

commitment for an additional reduction 

of 10 tpd of NOX and 0.5 tpd of PM–10 

from State mobile sources. Also, since 

5430 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 4, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

33As a result of the NOX/PM strategy, NOX is the 

only PM–10 precursor used in the 5% calculation.

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 midcourse 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 NOX 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.

However, EPA does believe that the 

Table 7–2 ‘‘Alternative Method’’ is an 

approvable method for meeting the 

section 189(d) 5% requirement. This 

method: 

• Achieves the 5% annual reduction 

of either PM–10 or PM–10 precursors 

from 2002 to 2010, 

• Is consistent with the District’s 

NOX/PM attainment strategy for PM–10 

precursors; and 

• Carries forward any reductions 

beyond 5% towards calculating the 5% 

requirement for a future year. 

Reliance on reductions in either PM–10 

or PM–10 precursor emissions is 

specifically provided for in section 

189(d). Since the attainment 

demonstration is based on a NOX/PM 

strategy (see section IV.A. above), EPA 

believes it is reasonable to calculate the 

percentage of reductions required based 

upon NOX reductions, and not to 

require reductions in the other PM–10 

precursors VOC, SOX, 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 NOX

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

Year NOX

(tons/day) 

PM–10

(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 NOX are 

being achieved until the attainment 

year. Reductions of PM–10 and NOX 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 NOX 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. 

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

emissions; (c) a commitment for the 

Indirect Source Mitigation Program (d) a 

commitment for 10 tpd of NOX 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 SOX

measures. 

(5) EPA is proposing to approve the 

NOX 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