United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Rule 4103, Open Burning

Prepared by Joanne Wells

Approved by Andrew Steckel

June 2011
-2-

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Rule Previously Approved into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)

• Rule 4103 - Open Burning

Amended on May 17, 2007 

Submitted on April 6, 2009

SIP-approved on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 57907)

Subject of this Technical Support Document (TSD)

• Rule 4103 - Open Burning

Amended on April 15, 2010

Amendments effective June 1, 2010

Submitted on April 5, 2011

• Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning – Table 9-1 

Adopted on May 20, 2010

Submitted on April 5, 2011

EPA determined this submittal was complete on May 6, 2011.

Background and Summary of Rule 4103 and Rule Amendments

Rule 4103 is designed to minimize impacts of smoke and other air pollutants from open 

burning of agricultural waste and other materials within SJVUAPCD. The rule restricts 

the type of materials that may be burned and establishes other conditions and procedures

for open burning in conjunction with SJVUAPCD’s Smoke Management System 

(SMS).1 Under the SMS, SJVUAPCD analyzes the daily impact of open burning on air 

quality in 103 zones in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and allocates daily burning 

allowances based on local meteorology, air quality conditions, atmospheric holding 

capacity, burning already approved in an area, impacts on downwind populations and 

other factors. Permitted burns must comply with Rule 4103 provisions regarding, for 

example, moisture (e.g., Section 5.5.4 and 5.5.9), time of day (Sections 5.5.11 and 5.5.12) 

and permits (Section 6.1).

SJVUAPCD revised Rule 4103 in 2010 largely to implement portions of California 

Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) sections 41855.5 and 41855.6. CH&SC section 

41855.5 requires SJVUAPCD to prohibit specific crop categories from open burning 

according to a schedule, the final phase of which began on June 1, 2010. CH&SC section 

41855.6 authorizes SJVUAPCD to postpone the burn prohibition for specific crop 

categories if all of the following conditions are met: 

• The SJVUAPCD determines that there is no economically feasible alternative 

means of eliminating the waste;

 

1 SJVUAPCD also refers to its SMS as a “Smoke Management Program” (see “San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District Proposed Smoke Management Program: Rules, Policies, and Procedures to 

Comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 17 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural 

and Prescribed Burning” (adopted June 20, 2002)). 
-3-

• The SJVUAPCD determines that there is no long-term federal or state funding 

commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the San Joaquin 

Valley or development of alternatives to burning; 

• The SJVUAPCD determines that the continued issuance of permits for that 

specific category or crop will not cause, or substantially contribute to, a violation 

of an applicable federal ambient air quality standard; and

• The California Air Resources Board (CARB) concurs with the SJVUAPCD’s 

determinations.

The primary impact of the 2010 amendments was to extend the prohibition on open 

burning to several new crop categories. Specific revisions to the previous version of the 

rule include:

• New or revised definitions are provided in Section 3.0 for the following terms: Air 

Pollution Control Officer, Board, Environmental Protection Agency, Field Crops, 

Orchard Removals, Other Materials, Other Weeds and Maintenance, Prunings, 

Surface Harvested Prunings, Vineyard Removal Materials, Vineyard Materials

and Weed Abatement.

• Section 5.5.1 was amended to include all agricultural crops and materials listed in 

CH&SC Section 41855.5, thereby prohibiting the open burning of all materials 

not subject to a postponement under Section 5.5.2.

• Section 5.5.2 was revised to include criteria that SJVUAPCD must satisfy to 

postpone a burn prohibition under CH&SC Section 41855.6.

• New Section 6.3 requires the SJVUAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) 

to prepare and present to the Board for review and approval a “Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning” for any Board determination under 

section 5.5.2. The APCO must also update this Report at least every five years.

On May 20, 2010, the Board approved and incorporated by reference a “Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning” prepared pursuant to section 6.3 of the rule.2

The Staff Report recommended complete or partial postponement of the June 1, 2010

burn prohibition for the following crop categories: grape and kiwi vineyard removal 

materials, small orchards including fig crops, citrus orchard removals, apple, pear and 

quince crops, ponding and levee banks, diseased bee hives, rice stubble, raisin trays, and 

almond, walnut and pecan prunings. These recommendations are summarized in Table 9-

1 of the Staff Report and we refer below to the recommendations, as adopted by the 

 

2 Governing Board of SJVUAPCD Resolution No. 10-05-22 (In the Matter of: Approve Agricultural 

Burning Report and Proposed Findings and Recommendations) (May 20, 2010). 
-4-

Board, as “Table 9-1.”3 In approving the Staff Report, the Board made the each of the

determinations required by section 5.5.2 of the rule with respect to the recommended 

postponements.

On May 27, 2010, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) concurred with the 

District’s determinations regarding the burn prohibition postponements set forth in Table 

9-1.4 The postponements listed in Table 9-1 therefore became effective along with the 

revisions to the rule on June 1, 2010. However, CARB limited its concurrence to a period 

of two years.

Rule Evaluation Criteria

EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule 4103 and Table 9-1:

1. Enforceability – Clean Air Act (CAA) §110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally 

enforceable. 

2. SIP Revisions - We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine whether 

it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 

and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement 

of the Act (CAA §110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIPapproved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA 

§193).

3. Rule Stringency – CAA §172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas to 

implement all 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), as expeditiously as practicable. The San 

Joaquin Valley is designated as an extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area

and an extreme 8-hr ozone nonattainment area, and is also designated

nonattainment for both the 1997 annual and 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) standards (40 C.F.R. Part 81). Open burning of crop residue emits

direct PM2.5, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), which are precursors to PM2.5 and ozone. Therefore, 

SJVUAPCD must implement RACM for open burning if those measures 

will advance attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 or ozone, when considered collectively with other

reasonable measures. Additional control measures may be required 

pursuant to CAA §172(c)(1) if both: (1) additional measures are 

 

3 Following the Board’s approval of the Staff Report on May 20, 2010, SJCUAPCD staff revised the cost 

estimates for vineyard removal and modified the Staff Report accordingly on July 21, 2010. These 

revisions did not result in any changes to the postponements set forth in Table 9-1. References to Table 9-1 

below are to the version of Table 9-1 formally adopted by the Board on May 20, 2010. All other references 

to the Staff Report are to version revised on July 21, 2010.

4 California Air Resources Board Resolution 10-24.
-5-

reasonably available; and (2) these additional reasonably available 

measures will advance attainment in the area when considered 

collectively. 

SJVUAPCD is currently designated attainment for PM10 (40 CFR § 

81.305). Accordingly, SJVUAPCD is not subject to the requirement to 

implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for PM10 and PM10

precursors in CAA § 189(b) and (e). Therefore, we are not evaluating Rule 

4103 for compliance with BACM requirements. 

Rule Evaluation

1. Enforceability – With the exception of the issue discussed in the subsequent 

paragraph, the 2010 versions of Rule 4103 and Table 9-1 specify clear and 

unambiguous requirements for open burning and the prohibitions for burning 

specific crop categories and agricultural materials.

Table 9-1 provides the APCO with discretion to allow individual operators to 

burn additional acres of almond, walnut and pecan prunings under specific 

circumstances. EPA generally discourages SIP provisions that allow APCO

discretion to independently interpret the SIP, but acknowledges that such 

“director’s discretion” may be appropriate if explicit and replicable procedures 

within the rule tightly define how the discretion will be exercised (see, e.g., the 

Little Bluebook and 52 FR 45109, 11/24/87). Rule 4103 and Table 9-1 provide a 

specific procedure for operators to seek permission to burn additional acres of 

prunings. Under this procedure, the APCO can allow an operator to burn 

additional acres of prunings based on a determination that (1) adequate shredding 

services are not available in time for the operator to proceed with established 

postpruning cultural practices, or (2) that the cost of such shredding services 

would represent an unreasonable financial impact to the operator. We believe that 

these standards constitute appropriate limitations on the APCO’s discretion, given 

the limited history of this type of burning prohibition. In addition, the burning of 

these additional acres is still subject to SJVUAPCD’s SMS, thereby minimizing 

impacts of added smoke emissions. Nonetheless, this discretion should be further 

limited in the future as SJVUAPCD gains more implementation experience. 

2. SIP Revisions – SJVUAPCD estimates that the new or expanded open burning 

prohibitions in the 2010 revisions to Rule 4103 and Table 9-1 reduce total annual 

emissions by 39.2 tons/year NOx, 123.1 t/y PM2.5, and 105.2 t/y VOC. These 

more stringent prohibitions address removal of fig orchards and other small 

orchards less than 20 acres, and prunings from fig, almond, pecan and walnut 

orchards. 5

However, the requirement in Section 5.5.2.3 of SIP-approved Rule 4103 to reduce 

the amount of rice stubble burning by June 1, 2010 to 50% has been deleted in 

 

5 Staff Report, Table 5-5.
-6-

this rule revision. This allows growers to continue burning up to 70% of their rice 

stubble and represents a relaxation of the SIP-approved requirement to only burn 

50% between 2010 and 2015. SJVUAPCD conservatively estimates the 

associated emission reductions postponed until 2015 are 22 ton/year NOx, 25 t/y

PM2.5, and 21 t/y VOC.

6 Actual impacts should be smaller because these 

estimates are based on the total number of acres (14,566) of rice farmed in 2005,7

while the reported annual average rice acreage burned from 2007-2009 is much 

smaller (3,073).

8

As a result, any rice stubble emission reductions postponed should be more than 

offset by the overall emission reductions achieved by the new prohibitions from 

burning other crop categories (e.g., 39.2 t/y compared to 22 t/y NOx). Therefore, 

we propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with 

CAA §110(l), because the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the ongoing process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment are met and 

the submitted SIP revision is at least as stringent as, if not more stringent than, the 

rule previously approved into the SIP. CAA §193 does not apply to this action 

because the submitted SIP revision does not weaken any SIP control requirement 

in effect before November 15, 1990.

3. Rule Stringency – EPA reviewed the previous version of Rule 4103 just two 

years ago, and approved it as meeting requirements for RACM and BACM for 

PM10 at that time (74 FR 30485; 74 FR 57907). Our rationale for these 

conclusions included the following: 

• EPA has not established specific control standards for open burning activities.

• SJVUAPCD, SCAQMD, and the other large California nonattainment 

agencies generally have among the most stringent stationary source 

requirements nationwide, and we are not aware of other reasonably available 

technological or operational controls likely to significantly reduce emissions 

from this activity.9

We believe that the current version of Rule 4103 requires all control measures for 

open burning activities in the San Joaquin Valley that are “reasonably available” 

considering technological and economic feasibility, for the reasons cited above as 

well as the following reasons: 

• The 2010 version is more stringent that the version we approved as 

establishing RACM- and BACM-level controls in 2009. 

• SJVUAPCD conducted a detailed technical and economic analysis of 

alternatives to open burning for each crop category and determined that for 

 

6 See Attachment 1, CAA 110(l) Analysis for Rice Stubble, for a summary of the emissions data and 

calculations.

7 Final Staff Report for Rule 4103 [2007 Revisions], Appendix B - Emission Reductions Analysis for 

Proposed Amendments to Rule 4103, Tables 5 & 6, SJVUAPCD (May 17, 2007). 8 Staff Report, Table 5-1. 9 EPA Region IX, Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SJVUAPCD 

Rule 4103, May 28, 2009. 
-7-

each of the crop categories allowed some burning in Table 9-1 there is no 

economically feasible alternative means of eliminating the waste.

• SJVUAPCD determined that there is no long-term federal or state funding 

commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the San 

Joaquin Valley or development of alternatives to burning.

• SJVUAPCD determined that the continued issuance of permits for that 

specific category or crop will not cause, or substantially contribute to, a 

violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality standard.10

• EPA previously identified implementation of a smoke management program 

(without the additional burning restrictions in Rule 4103) as RACM-level 

controls for PM10.

11

• We have compared the control requirements in Rule 4103 with analogous 

rules in other local districts and states and believe that Rule 4103 is as 

stringent as or more stringent than those other rules.12

In separate rulemakings, EPA will take action on the State’s RACM demonstration for 

PM2.5 and ozone based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and 

their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates in the San Joaquin 

Valley. See 40 CFR §§ 51.1010, 51.912(d).

Rule Deficiencies 

No deficiencies with Rule 4103 were identified that would be sufficient for EPA to 

propose less than full approval.

EPA Action

We propose to determine that Rule 4103 fulfills the applicable CAA § 110 and title I, part 

D requirements. Therefore, under section 110(k) of the CAA, EPA staff recommends full 

approval of (1) SJVUAPCD Rule 4103, Open Burning, amended on April 15, 2010; and 

(2) Table 9-1, adopted on May 20, 2010.13 These materials were submitted on April 5, 

2011 for incorporation into the California SIP to replace the version of Rule 4103 as 

amended on May 17, 2007.

EPA Recommendations

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are 

recommended as improvements the next time the rule and/or Table 9-1 are revised.

 

10 See, e.g., Staff Report, Chapter 9. 11 See, e.g., 57 13498 at 13540 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 Appendix C3 at 18072 (April 28, 1992). 12 See, e.g. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173–425 (Open Burning) (Nov. 10, 2010); Idaho 

Administrative Procedures Act §§ 58.01.01.600-623 (Rules for Control of Open Burning)(May 8, 2009); 

Bay Area AQMD Regulation 5 (Open Burning) (July 8, 2008); South Coast AMQD Rule 444 (Open 

Burning)(Nov. 7, 2008); and Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 501(Agricultural Burning)(Apr. 3, 

1997). 13 SJVUAPCD has requested that EPA approve Rule 4103 and only Table 9-1 of the Staff Report, rather 

than the Staff Report in its entirety, as the recommendations in Table 9-1 together with Rule 4103 provide 

the basis for the District’s open burning program. See email dated June 15, 2011, from George Heinen 

(SJVUAPCD) to Andrew Steckel (EPA).
-8-

1. We recommend that SJVUAPCD reevaluate the technical and economic need for 

postponements listed in Table 9-1. For example: 

a. Further analyze the economic feasibility of grinding and sending citrus orchard 

removal materials to a biomass plant (including the issue of available capacity

and acceptance of citrus materials by biomass facilities).

14 SJVUAPCD recently 

informed EPA that it will no longer permit open burning citrus orchard removals 

“when case-by-case analysis indicates sufficient biomass plant capacity and the 

availability of economically feasible chipping services.”15 SJVUAPCD has also 

noted that “economies-of-scale and the high current levels of biomass fuel 

demand at biomass-to-energy plants are critical for both growers and chippers to 

carry out the non-burning alternative in a sustainable, cost effective manner.”16

EPA encourages SJVUAPCD to continue closely monitoring the economic 

feasibility of sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass and to remove 

the current postponements for any sub-categories of citrus removals for which 

there is a feasible alternative. For example, further analyze whether the 

alternative of sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass facilities may 

be economically feasible for farms above 100 acres.

17

b. We recommend that SJVUAPCD reevaluate the availability of contractors to 

shred almond, walnut and pecan prunings based on updated data. Additional 

contractor shredding capacity may become available as large growers purchase 

shredders to comply with the rule.18

Although we are proposing to conclude that Rule 4103 currently requires all 

“reasonably available” control measures for open burning in the San Joaquin Valley, 

we note that RACM/RACT can become more stringent over time as new control 

measures develop and/or the costs of existing control measures decrease, and we 

encourage CARB and SJVUAPCD to reevaluate the rule, including the 

postponements adopted in Table 9-1, at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the 

State adopts all RACM for open burning activities as expeditiously as practicable. We 

note that SJVUAPCD is obligated to reevaluate the adopted postponements by 2015, 

and that CARB has committed to reconsider its concurrence with the postponements 

by 2012 (CARB Resolution 10-24).

2. To improve clarity, SJVUAPCD should incorporate the postponements found in 

Table 9-1 directly into Rule 4103. While these provisions are enforceable as 

 

14 Section 3.2.3 of the Staff Report describes technical concerns with prohibiting open burning of citrus 

material, but suggests these issues have been addressed and also indicates that the biomass facilities are 

now more willing and able to accept this material. Nonetheless, EPA acknowledges that biomass facilities 

generally consider citrus material to be the least desirable of all fuel types and must blend it with other fuel 

types. (Staff Report at 7-37). SJVUAPCD has also noted that, since urban waste is typically less 

expensive than agricultural waste, urban waste (particularly construction debris) may displace some of the 

current capacity for agricultural waste, as the economy improves and construction activity increases. 

Therefore, SJVUAPCD believes that significant uncertainty remains over the economic feasibility of 

sending citrus orchard removal material to biomass. (Staff Report at 7-49). 15 See letter dated June 27, 2011, from Seyed Sadredin (SJVUAPCD) to Deborah Jordan (EPA). 16 Id. 17 See, e.g., Staff Report Table 3-4. 18 See Section 3.2.7 of the Staff Report.
-9-

currently written, relying on sections of the Staff Report to implement the rule is 

unnecessarily confusing and could lead to compliance issues. Among other sections, 

this would require revisions to Rule 4103 sections 5.5.2 and 6.3.

References

Regulatory, guidance and other documents used in the evaluation of Rule 4103 and Table 

9-1 include the following:

1. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA 

(May 25, 1988). [The Bluebook]

2. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA 

Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook].

3. 40 CFR § 51.1010.

4. Preamble, Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (Apr. 25, 

2007).

5. Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2, 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005).

6. General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act, 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992).

7. General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Supplement, 

57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

8. Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (amended April 15, 2010). 

9. SIP-Approved SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (amended May 17, 2007).

10. SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning, 

(revised May 20, 2010).

11. SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

(revised July 21, 2010).

12. SJVUAPCD Staff Report Rule 4103 (April 15, 2010). 

13. California Health and Safety Code, Sections 43855.5 and 43855.6 (2004).

14. Governing Board of SJVUAPCD Resolution No. 10-05-22 (In the Matter of: Approve 

Agricultural Burning Report and Proposed Findings and Recommendations) (May 20, 

2010).

15. California Air Resources Board Resolution 10-24 (May 27, 2010).

16. EPA Region IX, Technical Support Document for EPA’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (May 28, 2009).

17. SJVUAPCD Proposed Smoke Management Program: Rules, Policies, and 

Procedures to Comply with the California Code of Regulations Title 17 Smoke 

Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning (adopted June 20, 

2002).

18. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173–425 (Open Burning) (Nov. 10, 2010).

19. Idaho Administrative Procedures Act §§ 58.01.01.600-623 (Rules for Control of 

Open Burning)(May 8, 2009).

20. Bay Area AQMD Regulation 5 (Open Burning) (July 8, 2008).

21. South Coast AMQD Rule 444 (Open Burning) (Nov. 7, 2008).

22. Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Rule 501(Agricultural Burning) (Apr. 3, 1997).

Attachment 1 - EPA CAA 110(l) Analysis Rice Stubble (June 17, 2011).
-10-
-11-

Attachment 1

Clean Air Act Section 110(l) Analysis Rice Stubble (Straw) Burning

SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 

Emissions Data & Calculations 

The estimated emissions from rice burning were calculated in the Final Draft Staff Report, May 17, 2007, 

Appendix B, Tables 5 and 6. The relevant data is summarized below.

Total acres of rice farmed (2005 data): 14,566 acres

NOx Emissions:

100% Burn Allowance = 115 tons/year

 70% Burn Allowance = 80 tons/year (reduction = 35 tons/year)

 50% Burn Allowance = 58 tons/year (reduction = 57 tons/year)

Emission Reduction Loss = 22 tons/year

PM10 Emissions

100% Burn Allowance = 138 tons/year

 70% Burn Allowance = 96 tons/year (reduction = 42 tons/year)

 50% Burn Allowance - 69 tons/year (reduction = 69 tons/year)

Emission Reduction Loss = 27 tons/year (Equivalent to 25 tons/year PM2.5)

VOC Emissions

100% Burn Allowance = 103 tons/year

 70% Burn Allowance = 72 tons/year (reduction = 31 tons/year)

 50% Burn Allowance - 51 tons/year (reduction = 52 tons/year)

Emission Reduction Loss = 21 tons/year

Total Annual Emission Reductions from All New Open Burning Prohibitions – Rule 4103 from Table 5-5 

in the Final Staff Report and Recommendations for Agricultural Burning, dated May 20, 2010 are: 

NOx: 39 tons/year

PM2.5: 123 tons/year

VOC: 105 tons/year

Notes: 1. Removing the June 1, 2010 requirement to lower the burn allowance from 70% to 

50% and keeping the burn allowance at 70% results in loss or rollback of emission 

reductions, for example: 22 tons/year NOx = 80.0 tons/year (70%) – 58.0 tons/year 

(50%)

2. The emission factor for PM2.5 is 5.9 lbs per ton compared with PM10 which is 6.3 per 

ton. (San Joaquin Emission Inventory Methodology 670-Agricultural Burning).

3. Data rounded to the nearest ton/year.

June 17, 2011 – EPA Region 9