UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for EPA’s Direct Final Rulemaking

for the California State Implementation Plan

Feather River Air Quality Management District Rule 2.0 Open Burning

Prepared by: Rynda Kay

September 2014 2

 RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency: Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD or the District)

Submitted Rule: Rule 2.0 – Open Burning Amended – October 6, 2008 Submitted - August 7, 2014

Rules Previously Approved into the Californi a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to be Superseded:

In the late-1970s and 1980s, Sutter County and Yuba County adopted open burning regulations which were approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for inclusion into the California SIP as detailed below. In March 2004, these rules were locally merged into FRAQMD Rule 2.0, to apply District-wide and amended again locally in October 2008. On August 7, 2014, California Air Resources Board submitted Rule 2.0 to the EPA for inclusion into the California SIP, specifying this rule would supersede the

current California SIP rules listed below.

Sutter County Portion Rules:

 Rule 2.1, Exceptions to Rule 2.0 (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.2, APCO May Issue Burn Permit (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.3, Burning on "No-Burn" Days (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.4, Exception to Rule 2.3 (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.5, Permit Regulations (adopted October 15, 1985, submitted February 10, 1986, SIP rule approved on February 3, 1987, 52 FR 3226).

 Rule 2.6, Burning Hours (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.7, Agricultural Burning Requirement (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.8, Range Improvement and Property Being Developed for Commercial or Residential Purposes (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.82, Open Burning of Waste Wood on Property Where Grown (submitted February 25, 1980, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550).

 Rule 2.9, Prohibited Burning (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.10, Exceptions (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585). 3

  Rule 2.11, Fire Prevention (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.12, Designated Agencies (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.14, Reduction of Odorous Matter (submitted June 30, 1972, SIP rule approved on September 22, 1972, 37 FR 19812).

 Rule 2.15, Orchard and Citrus Heaters (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

 Rule 2.16, Cost of Putting Out a Fire (submitted January 28, 1981, SIP rule approved on April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585).

Yuba County Portion Rules:

 Rule 2.0, Open Fires (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.1, Exception to Rule 2.0 (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.2, APCO May Issue Burn Permit (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550).

 Rule 2.3, Burning on "No-Burn" Days (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.4, Exception to Rule 2.3 (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550 (all except 2.4(a)) and April 12, 1982, 47 FR 15585 (2.4(a)).

 Rule 2.5, Permit Regulations (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.6, Burning Hours (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.7, Agricultural Burning Requirement (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.8, Forest Management, Range Impr ovement and Property Being Developed for Commercial or Residential Purposes (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550).

 Rule 2.9, Prohibited Burning (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.10, Exceptions (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550).

 Rule 2.11, Fire Prevention (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

 Rule 2.12, Designated Agencies (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550).

 Rule 2.14, Pressure Tank (submitted June 30, 1972, SIP rule approved on September 22, 1972, 37 FR 19812).

 Rule 2.15, Orchard and Citrus Heaters (submitted October 15, 1979, SIP rule approved on January 26, 1982, 47 FR 3550).

 Rule 2.16, Cost of Putting Out a Fire (adopted March 5, 1985, submitted October 4

 16, 1985, SIP rule approved on April 17, 1987, 52 FR 12523).

RULE SUMMARY –

FRAQMD Rule 2.0 is designed to minimize the impacts of smoke and other air pollutants generated by open burning conducted within Sutter and Yuba Counties and to assure that it is managed consistent with state and federal law. Rule 2.0 allows open burning on permissive burn days, provided a permit is obtai ned; details the types of open burning that can be authorized; sets burn time, drying-time, and ignition requirements; establishes burn plan requirements for prescribed burns; limits burn acreage for agricultural burning; and lists exemptions to rule requirements.

Changes from the approved SIP rules include:

1. Added numerous definitions in Section E and other editorial changes to improve clarity.

2. Increased stringency by adding requirements for exempted burn types; prohibiting open burning at commercial properties, solid waste disposal facilities, burning in burn barrels, and burning for the disposal of most commercial and residential wood waste; expanding the list of prohibited materials; and removing the exemption for fires above specified elevations.

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted

rule.

1. Enforceability - The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. SIP Relaxation - CAA §110(l) pr ohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any ot her applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA §193 prohibits the modi fication of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

3. Stringency - Open burning emits PM10 and PM2.5 directly, as well as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which are precursors to

ozone and PM2.5.

FRAQMD regulates a portion of the Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment area,

which is classified as Severe-15 under the 1997 and 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (40 CFR § 81.305). . CAA §172(c)(1) 5

 requires nonattainment areas to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, FRAQMD must implement RACM for open burning if those measures will advance attainment of the NAAQS for 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 reasonably available; and (2) these additional reasonably available measures will advance attainment in the area when considered collectively. EPA acts on the State’s RACM demonstrations separately

based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment date in Feather River. Below, we identify additional control options that may be reasonably available (see “Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision”).

FRAQMD is currently designated attainment for PM10 (40 CFR § 81.305). Accordingly, FRAQMD is not subject to the requirement to implement RACM or Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for PM10 and PM10 precursors in CAA§ 189(b) and (e). Therefore, we are not evaluating Rule 2.0 for compliance with RACM or BACM requirements with respect to PM10.

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA designated the Yuba City-Marysville area, which is under FRAQMD jurisdiction, as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). As a result, the area was required to implement RACM for PM2.5. On January 10, 2013 (78 FR 2211),

EPA issued a determination that the area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard based on complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2009–2011 monitoring period. Under EPA's Clean Data Policy and the regulations that embody it, 40 CFR 51.1004(c) (for PM2.5), an EPA determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard suspends the area's obligations to submit RACM for as long as the area continues to attain. As a result, we are not evaluating Rule 2.0 for compliance with RACM requirements for PM2.5 at this time. In addition, on May 23, 2013, CARB requested that EPA redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment for the 2006 24- hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If the Yuba City-Marysville area is redesignated to attainment, RACM requirements for PM2.5 will no longer apply.

EPA EVALUATION -

1. Enforceability – FRAQMD Rule 2.0 provides greater clarity than the SIPapproved rules because it consolidates all information related to a burn type in one rule and provides new definitions. The rule requirements and applicability are generally clear, and the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 2.0 consistently.

a. Several provisions in the submitted rules summarized below, however, provide for Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) di scretion. EPA generally discourages SIP 6

 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 to assure equivalent emission reductions.” (Little Blue Book, page 17; see also 52 FR 45044, 45109 (November 24, 1987). Section I.8(a) allows for “Dry trees, rooted stumps and branches greater than six (6) inches in diameter may be ignited even though they cannot reasonably be expected to completely burn within the burn hours after approval from the APCO”

.

The District explains that attempting to extinguish such fires can cause more PM emissions and nuisance smoke than allowing them to burn out naturally. In granting this allowance, they evaluate the impact to nearby receptors and will not approve such ignitions if nuisances are anticipated ( see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0” p.1). As a result, we also believe that this standard, as written, constitutes adequate limitations on APCO’s discretion.

b. Section J.6 allows the APCO to authorize burning on a no-burn day when such

authorization would threaten “imminent and substantial economic loss”. While “imminent and substantial economic loss” is not explicitly defined, the APCO may only authorize such burning when downwind metropolitan areas are forecasted to achieve the NAAQS and shall limit the acreage to 200 acres. The District also noted that this allowance has not been used since the adoption of the rule amendments ( see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0” p.1). We believe that these standards constitute adequate limitations on APCO’s discretion. However, we recommend the District define “imminent and substantial economic loss” in the rule in the future to increase clarity as discussed in the“Additional

Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision” of this TSD.

c. Section L.5(c) allows the APCO to determine that residential air quality burn permits are not required. While no procedures as to how the APCO will make this determination are provided, the District adequately explains that residential burn permits have never been required by FRAQMD, were not required in the SIP rules being replaced, and that this provision is not being used for attainment purposes ( see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0”, p. 2).

2. SIP Relaxation - FRAQMD provided a detailed rule-by-rule analysis detailing where each SIP rule provision can be found in Rule 2.0 or how the rule was modified to be more stringent ( see “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0”). We generally concur with this evaluation.

Overall, we find Rule 2.0 incorporates the provisions of the SIP rules and increases stringency by adding requirements for ex empted burn types; prohibiting open burning at commercial properties, solid waste disposal facilities, burning in burn barrels, and burning for the disposal of most commercial and residential wood waste; expanding the list of prohibited materials; and removing the exemption for fires above specified elevations. 7

 We propose to determine that our approval of this submittal would comply with CAA §§110(l) and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and (2) the requirements in the submitted rule are more stringent than the existing SIP-approved control requirements that they would replace.

3. Stringency – This rule largely implements reasonably available control requirements because it is generally as stringent as other California District rules for this category. However, some areas are implementing more stringent requirements that may be technologically and economically feasible for implementation in Yuba and Sutter Counties (see “Additional Recommendations for the Next Rule Revision”). EPA will act on the State’s RACM demonstrations separately based on an evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their overall potential to advance the applicable attainment dates.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FO R THE NEXT RULE REVISION - The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended

for the next time the rule is amended.

1. In Section I.8(a), require that vegetation or stumps greater than 12 inches in diameter be split to smaller than 12 inches in diameter. See, e.g., Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) Rule 301, Section 306.6.

2. In Section J.8(a)(1), provide details within the rule of what should be included in a “Smoke Management Plan” for prescribed burns of various sizes. See, e.g., San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 4601, Section 5.2, and PCAPCD Rule 303, Section 306.

3. Define “imminent and substantial loss” as used in section J.6(a). See, e.g., SJVAPCD Rule 4103, Section 3.18 and PCAPCD Rule 102, Section 237

. 4. Include a detailed list of information required for permit applications (e.g., Placer Rule 302, Section 401).

5. Require permitted burners request and receive a daily burn authorization prior to conducting open burning (e.g., San Joaquin Rule 4103, Section 6.1.6; and Placer Rule 302, Section 404).

EPA ACTION

– The submitted Rule 2.0 strengthens the SIP. The rule fulfils the relevant CAA §110 and part D requirements. EPA staff recommends full approval of Rule 2.0 pursuant to CAA §§ 110(k)(3) 8

 REFERENCES -

1. FRAQMD Rule 2.0, Open Burning, as amended October 6, 2008 and submitted to EPA on August 7. 2014. 2. “FRAQMD CAA Section 110(l) and 193 for Rule 2.0”, submitted to EPA on August 7, 2014. 3. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cut points, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (web citation). 4. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf). 4. SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (Open Burning) (Amended April 15, 2010) and 4106 (Open Burning) (Amended June 21, 2001). 5. PCAPCD Rules 102 (Definitions), 301 (Nonagricultural Burning Smoke Management), 302 (Agricultural Burning Smoke Management) and 303 (Prescribed Burning Smoke Management) (Amended February 9, 2012).