P Providing Legal & Technical Assistance to the Grassroots Movement for Environmental Justice P

Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment

47 Kearny Street, Suite 804

San Francisco, CA 94108

415/346-4179 • fax 415/346-8723

bnewell@crpe-ej.org

Ralph Santiago Abascal (1934-1997)

Director 1990-1997

Luke W. Cole (1962-2009)

Executive Director 1997-2009

Caroline Farrell

Acting Executive Director

Lupe Martinez

Director of Organizing

Gustavo Aguirre

Assistant Director of Organizing

Daniela Simunovic

Irma Medellin

Refugio Gutierrez

Community Organizers

Don Spradlin

Director of Development

Lauren Richter

Development Assistant

Valerie Gorospe

Administrative Assistant

Brent Newell

Legal Director

Ingrid Brostrom • Alegría De La Cruz 

Jennifer Giddings • Marybelle Nzegwu

Sofia Sarabia

Staff Attorneys

Johannes Epke

Legal Intern

August 31, 2009

By electronic mail

Frances Wicher

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

wicher.frances@epa.gov

Re: Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour

Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No.

EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693).

Dear Ms. Wicher:

The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment submits these comments on behalf of

Association of Irritated Residents, Clean Water and Air Matter, Comité West Goshen, Comité

Unido de Plainview, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano Committee

for a Better Arvin, Moms Clean Air Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, La Nueva

Esperanza de Alpaugh, El Quinto Sol de America, South Shafter Project Committee, Shafter

Chapter League of United Latin American Citizens, United for a Change in Tooleville, and La

Voz de Tonyville (collectively “AIR”). 

I. INTRODUCTION.

AIR urges EPA to disapprove the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan

(“2004 SIP”), the 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 State Strategy because these plan revisions

rely on reductions from already-adopted state rules that are not SIP-approved and not included as
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 2 of 22

part of these plan revisions (hereafter “waiver measures”). EPA’s proposed approval violates the

Clean Air Act or is arbitrary and capricious because (1) the inventory relies on reductions from

waiver measures; (2) contingency measures rely on excess reductions from waiver measures and

unenforceable reductions from fleet turnover; (3) the attainment demonstration relies on

reductions from waiver measures; (4) the plan fails to demonstrate reasonable further progress

because of reliance on waiver measures; (5) the plans fail to demonstrate the plans include

adequate provisions to monitor compliance; (6) section 193 of the Act provides no refuge for

EPA’s proposal to allow waiver measures to remain unsubmitted and out of the SIP; (7) EPA has

failed to require Transportation Control Measures when vehicle miles traveled have increased in

the Valley; (8) the commitment in the 2003 State Strategy to achieve 20 tons per day of NOx and

15 tons per day of VOC reductions is not enforceable; (9) the 2003 State Strategy includes a

commitment to continue implementation of the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone State

Implementation Plan (“SIP”), which has an unenforceable commitment to adopt regulations as

interpreted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; (10) District Rule 4570, published at 74 Fed.

Reg. 33948 (July 14, 2009) is fundamentally deficient, yet EPA grants credit for the reductions

from the rule in the attainment demonstration and ROP; and (11) California reformulated gasoline

(RFG) and diesel fuel rule amendments, published at 74 Fed. Reg. 33196 (July 14, 2009), is

unenforceable, yet EPA grants credit for the reductions from the rule in the attainment

demonstration and ROP.

EPA should disapprove the 2004 SIP, 2008 Clarification, and the 2003 State Strategy

because of these fundamental deficiencies. 

A. Factual Background. 

In part because of exemptions for agricultural and oil production sources, and inadequate

regulations, the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15,

1999. 73 Fed. Reg. 61381 (Oct. 16, 2008). As a result of that failure, the Act reclassified the

Valley to a severe nonattainment area by operation of law. Id. EPA subsequently found that

California failed to submit required components of a severe area plan. 67 Fed. Reg. 61784 (Oct.

2, 2002). On April 16, 2004, EPA granted California’s request to reclassify the Valley to an

extreme nonattainment area and required the Valley to submit an extreme attainment plan by

November 15, 2004 and New Source Review program amendments by May 15, 2005. 69 Fed.

Reg. 20550 (April 16, 2004).

EPA rescinded the 1-hour ozone standard effective one year from the effective date of the

8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“standard” or “standards”) designation. 69 Fed.

Reg. 23951, 23969 (April 30, 2004); 69 Fed. Reg. 23858 (April 30, 2004). Even though EPA has

rescinded the 1-hour ozone standard, the discretionary and mandatory requirements applicable 1-
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 Renee Sharp and Bill Walker, PARTICLE CIVICS: HOW CLEANER AIR IN CALIFORNIA WILL 1

SAVE LIVES AND SAVE MONEY, Environmental Working Group at 19, attached as Exh. 1.

 American Lung Association, STATE OF THE AIR: 2009, attached as Exh. 2. 2

 Id. at 21. 3

 Id. at 20. 4

Page 3 of 22

hour ozone nonattainment areas remain in effect. See 69 Fed. Reg. 23951, 23972-23974 (April

30, 2004); see also South Coast Air Quality Management District v. U.S. E.P.A., 472 F.3d 882

(D.C. Cir. 2006).

NOx and VOC are ozone (commonly known as “smog”) precursors and fine particle

(PM2.5) precursors. Both ozone and PM2.5 levels in the San Joaquin Valley constitute a public

health crisis. The Environmental Working Group published the Air Resources Board’s estimates

that show 1,292 San Joaquin Valley residents die each year from long-term exposure to PM2.5.1

Ozone and PM pollution exacerbate respiratory conditions, including asthma, increase

hospitalizations and emergency room visits, contribute to cardiac illnesses, and increase school

and work absenteeism. The American Lung Association ranks the San Joaquin Valley counties 2

of Kern, Tulare, and Fresno as the third, fourth, and sixth most ozone-polluted counties in the

United States, respectively. For long term exposure to PM2.5, the American Lung Association 3

ranks the San Joaquin Valley counties of Kern, Tulare, Kings, and Fresno as the first, fourth,

seventh, and eighth most polluted counties.4

A document prepared jointly by the California Air Resources Board and the American

Lung Association describes ozone as

a powerful oxidant that can damage the respiratory tract, causing inflammation

and irritation, and induces symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness

of breath, and worsening of asthma symptoms. Ozone in sufficient doses

increases the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins

and microorganisms. The greatest risk is to those who are more active outdoors

during smoggy periods, such as children, athletes, and outdoor workers. Exposure

to levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard leads to lung

inflammation and lung tissue damage, and a reduction in the amount of air inhaled

into the lungs. Recent evidence has, for the first time, linked the onset of asthma

to exposure of elevated ozone levels in exercising children (McConnell 2002). 
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 The California Air Resources Board and the American Lung Association of California,

5

RECENT RESEARCH FINDINGS: HEALTH EFFECTS OF PARTICULATE MATTER AND OZONE AIR

POLLUTION, January 2004 at 2. 

 See Jane Hall and Victor Brajer, THE BENEFITS OF MEETING FEDERAL CLEAN AIR 6

STANDARDS IN THE SOUTH COAST AND SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR BASINS, November 2008,

attached as Exh. 3. 

 See Select 8 Summaries, attached as Exh. 4. 7

Page 4 of 22

These levels of ozone also reduce crop and timber yields, damage native plants,

and damage materials such as rubber, paints, fabric, and plastics.5

The document also shows the significant health effects and costs of exposure to fine particulate

matter and ozone in California. 

In late 2008, Jane V. Hall, Ph.D., and Victor Brajer, Ph.D., published a comprehensive

analysis of the effects from not meeting the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2008 PM 2.5. 

The health effects of not meeting these standards, and their concomitant economic values, inflict a

conservative measurable cost of $5.7 billion each year –$1,600 per person – in the San Joaquin

Valley. While these data are not directly related to the failure to meet the 1-hour ozone standard, 6

attaining the 1-hour standard reflects progress towards attaining the 8-hour standard and the 2008

PM2.5 standard (NOx and VOC are also PM2.5 precursors). Thus, a meaningful plan to attain the

1-hour standard by the 2010 deadline also means progress towards solving the health and

economic consequences of the air quality crisis in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Between 2006 and 2008, the San Joaquin Valley violated the 1-hour ozone standard on an

average of 13 days each year and has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone standard an average of 77

days each year.

7

B. Statutory Background.

“The Clean Air Act sets forth a cooperative state-federal scheme for improving the

nation’s air quality.” Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004). Congress enacted the

1970 Clean Air Act (“the Act”), as amended in 1977 and 1990, “to protect and enhance the quality

of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive

capacity of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). The Act relies on a scheme of cooperative

federalism, whereby the states develop and submit plans and regulations to attain the health-based
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 “The term ‘applicable implementation plan’ means the portion (or portions) of the 8

implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which as been approved under section 7410

of this title, or promulgated under section 7410(c) of this title, or promulgated or approved

pursuant to regulations promulgated under section 7601(d) of this title and which implements the

relevant requirements of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(q).

Page 5 of 22

standards. EPA’s role is to ensure that such plans and regulations conform to the minimum

requirements of the Act. 

Because the San Joaquin Valley is an extreme ozone nonattainment area, the 2004 SIP, the

2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy must comply with the requirements of

sections 110, 172 and 182 of the Clean Air Act, among other requirements of the Act, or EPA has

a mandatory duty to disapprove the state’s submissions, in whole or in part. See 42 U.S.C. §§

7410(a), 7410(k), 7502, 7511a. 

One of the fundamental principles of the Clean Air Act is that State Implementation Plans

must contain the emission limitations and control measures to provide for attainment of the

health-based standards by the applicable deadline, provide reasonable further progress, and

comply with any other applicable requirement of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(A),

7502(c)(6). Similarly, contingency measures “shall be included in the plan” to take effect without

further action by the state or the administrator. 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(9) (emphasis added); see also

42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c)(9). In addition, California must demonstrate that “the plan, as revised, will

provide for attainment of the ozone national ambient air quality standard” by the deadline for an

extreme area. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c)(2)(A). 

Likewise, California must demonstrate Rate of Progress, that “the plan, as revised, will

result in VOC [or NOx] reductions” equal to at least a 3% reduction of baseline emissions. 42

U.S.C. § 7511a(c)(2)(B) (emphasis added). These reductions must conform to specific credibility

requirements in sections 182(b)(1)(C) and (D) of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7511a(c)(2)(B) and

(C). Section 182(b)(1)(C) mandates that “emissions reductions are creditable . . . to the extent

that they have actually occurred from the implementation of measures required under the

applicable implementation plan, rules promulgated by the Administrator, or a permit under

subchapter V of this Chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)( 1)(C) (emphasis added). 

8

EPA’s regulations implement the requirements of the Act and echo its mandates. Alreadyadopted regulations on which a plan relies must be included in the plan itself. “Revisions of a

plan, or any portion thereof, will not be considered part of an applicable plan until such revisions
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 “Plan means an implementation plan approved or promulgated under section 110 of 172 of 9

the Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.100(j) (“110 of 172” in original). 

Page 6 of 22

have been approved by the Administrator in accordance with this part.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.105 9

(emphasis added). “Each plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations

contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national

standard that it implements.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.112(a). EPA’s regulations plainly require that 

Emission limitations and other measures necessary for attainment and maintenance

of any national standard, including any measures necessary to implement the

requirements of subpart L must be adopted as rules and regulations enforceable by

the State agency. Copies of all such rules and regulations must be submitted with the

plan. 

40 C.F.R. § 51.281 (emphasis added).

The General Preamble, EPA’s guidance on implementation of Title I of the Act, further

demonstrates that the state’s already adopted measures must be submitted to EPA and included in

the State Implementation Plan in order to satisfy the requirements of the Act. 

One purpose of a SIP is to perform demonstrations of how various goals will be

achieved. These goals are of three types: Attainment of the NAAQS, maintenance of

the NAAQS once attainment occurs, and prescribed rates of progress. . . . These

assumptions, control strategies, and measures are developed as necessary to meet the

attainment objectives for the area and the Act’s requirements (e.g. RACT). These

assumptions and measures are key components of the SIP. It is important to note that

projections of the effect of planned air pollution control measures contained in the

SIP’s are not merely assumed but are enforced by regulations adopted as part of the

SIP. Therefore, if the control measures are not implemented sufficiently to result in

required reductions, the State or local agency, or EPA, can take action to enforce

implementation of the regulations. This provides a means of achieving, at least, in

part, the goals of attainment and further progress required in the Act.

57 Fed. Reg. 13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992) (emphasis added).

The General Preamble sets forth what it calls four “fundamental principles for SIPs”: SIP

measures must be quantifiable, enforceable, replicable, and accountable. Id. at 13567-13568. 

These principles apply to all SIPs and control measures. Id. at 13568. Of importance here, the
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 17 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 94507-94517. 10

 13 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 2281-2282. 11

 13 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 2250 et seq. 

12

Page 7 of 22

second principle (enforceable measures) means that the measures are “duly adopted, and specify

clear, unambiguous, and measurable requirements.” Id. “A legal means for ensuring compliance

must also exist for a measure to be enforceable.” Id. The practicality of determining compliance

is a factor. “A regulatory limit is not enforceable if, for example, it is impractical to determine

compliance with the published limit.” Id. EPA further explains the concept of enforceability in

the General Preamble:

In general, for a SIP regulation to be enforceable, it must clearly spell out which

sources or source types are subject to its requirements and what its requirements

(work practices, emission limits, etc.) are. The regulation also needs to specify the

time frames within which these requirements must be met, and must definitively state

recordkeeping and monitoring requirements appropriate to the type of sources being

regulated. The recordkeeping and monitoring requirements must be sufficient to

allow determinations on a continuing basis whether sources are complying. An

enforceable regulation must also contain test procedures in order to determine

whether sources are in compliance. 

Id. at 13502.

II. THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD HAS NOT SUBMITTED AND THE EPA HAS

NOT APPROVED WAIVER MEASURES FOR INCLUSION IN THE SIP.

To date, EPA has not approved state-adopted regulations as part of the state

implementation plan, with the lone exception of three already-adopted measures submitted by

ARB along with the 1994 Ozone SIP and motor vehicle Inspection/Maintenance regulations. The

three control measures that California had adopted and submitted with the 1994 Ozone SIP are (1)

antiperspirant and deodorant regulations; (2) diesel fuel regulations; and (3) reformulated 10 11

gasoline regulations. 61 Fed. Reg. 10920, 10925 (March 18, 1996); 62 Fed. Reg. 1150, 1159 12

(Jan. 8, 1997). EPA approved the measures as part of the SIP. See 60 Fed. Reg. 43379 (Aug. 21,

1995). 

During the 1994 Ozone SIP approval process, EPA also approved required
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 In 1994 SIP currency, the total tonnage of those state measures for the San Joaquin Valley is 13

15 tons per day of VOC and 5 tons per day of NOx. 61 Fed. Reg. at 10945; 62 Fed. Reg. at

1173.

 See 74 Fed. Reg. 33933, 33936 (July 14, 2009); ARB Staff Report at Table III-6. 14

Page 8 of 22

Inspection/Maintenance regulations (“I/M” or “Smog Check”) that the state submitted to EPA in

1995 and 1996. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 10931-10934; 62 Fed. Reg. at 1168. EPA has not approved

any state adopted regulations since EPA approved the 1994 Ozone SIP in 1997.

In the 1994 Ozone SIP, the ARB and Department of Pesticide Regulation committed to

adopt a host of state mobile source, consumer products, and pesticide control measures. See 62

Fed. Reg. 1160-1169. ARB claims to have adopted such measures, as well as additional 13

measures that ARB had not committed to adopting in the 1994 Ozone SIP. See State Strategy at

Table I-1. In January 2008, the Department of Pesticide Regulation adopted regulations, pursuant

to a federal court order in El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, No. 04-0882

(E.D. Cal.), and submitted them to EPA but EPA has not approved them as part of the SIP. None

of the state regulations listed in State Strategy Table I-1, except the I/M regulations adopted in

1995, have been approved by EPA as a part of the State Implementation Plan.

As a result of AIR’s November 17, 2008 comments on the first proposed approval of the

2004 SIP, EPA has required ARB to submit “non-waiver” measures, or those ARB-adopted rules

for which ARB does not seek a waiver under section 209 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7543. See 74

Fed. Reg. 33933, 33939 (July 14, 2009). EPA takes the position in the proposed rule that ARB

need not submit any rules adopted to regulate on-road and non-road vehicle or engine standards

for which ARB obtains a waiver under section 209 of the Act – “waiver measures” – and that

EPA may approved the 2004 SIP without such measures being in the plan or otherwise submitted

to EPA for its review and approval.

Neither EPA’s proposed rule nor the Technical Support Document (TSD) set forth the

amount of reductions from “wavier measures” used in the attainment demonstration, used in the

rate of progress demonstration, and used for contingency measures. However, based on Tables 1

and 5 of the proposed rule, it appears that “waiver measures” account for the vast majority of

baseline measures, which according to ARB account for 79.3 tons per day of VOC and 97.2 tons

per day of Nox reductions in 2010. 

14

Finally, the 2003 Final State Strategy commits to adopting regulations to achieve 20 tons

per day of NOx and 15 tons per day of VOC reductions by 2010. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 61385; State
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 ARB Staff Report at 26. 15

 ARB Staff Report at 26. 16

Page 9 of 22

Strategy at I-24 through I-26; 2004 SIP at 4-55. ARB claims to have complied with this

commitment, yet has not submitted any of the adopted regulations to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. 

This is particularly problematic because only four months remain in 2009.

Sources under state control (not District control) account for 46% of the Valley’s

inventory of ozone forming emissions in 2000. According to ARB, 15

ARB regulations on the books as of 2002 are providing 176 tpd of emission

reductions – these include the Low-Emission Vehicle Program and California

Reformulated Gasoline, together with a series of progressively tighter emission

standards for new engines used in big diesel trucks and heavy equipment, forklifts

and pumps, lawn and garden equipment, pleasure craft, and over 100 categories of

consumer products.16

No on-road or non-road regulations adopted by ARB have been submitted to EPA, or

approved by EPA as a part of the SIP. This fundamental failure infects the entire 2004 SIP. EPA

cannot approve the 2004 SIP when such a huge component of the control strategy – waiver

measures – have not been submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP. EPA has not even reviewed

the rules to make a finding that such rules actually produce the reductions claimed. 

III. THE 2004 SIP’S BASELINE INVENTORY INCLUDES REDUCTIONS FROM

WAIVER MEASURES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO EPA, OR

APPROVED BY EPA, AS PART OF THE SIP.

Because California uses reductions from waiver measures that occur before 2000 as part of

the 2000 baseline inventory, EPA’s proposed approval of the inventory violates sections 172(c)(3)

and 182(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(3) and 7511a(a)(1), because EPA has failed to find

that the reductions from the waiver measures have occurred, are enforceable, or are otherwise

consistent with the Act, EPA’s implementing regulations, and the General Preamble.
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 10 of 22

IV. EPA APPROVAL OF THE CONTINGENCY MEASURES DEMONSTRATION IN

THE 2004 SIP AND THE 2008 SIP CLARIFICATION VIOLATES THE CLEAN

AIR ACT BECAUSE WAIVER MEASURES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY

EPA AS A PART OF THE SIP AND FLEET TURNOVER IS NOT

ENFORCEABLE.

As set forth above in Section I.B, supra, sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(9) and 7511a(c), require contingency measures to be included in the SIP. Any

measures used as contingency measures must be enforceable. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(A). 

The 2008 SIP Clarification attempts to use reductions from waiver measures and reductions from

on-road fleet turnover in 2011 as year contingency measures. 74 Fed. Reg. at 33944. AIR agrees

with EPA’s proposal to disapprove the attainment year contingency measures, but takes issue with

EPA allowing the 2004 SIP to take credit for reductions from waiver measures and on-road fleet

turnover.

Waiver measures cannot operate as contingency measures because such measures are not

in the SIP and have not been submitted to EPA as part of the 2004 Plan or the 2003 Final State

Strategy. Moreover, EPA cannot approve excess reductions from “fleet turnover” in 2011 as

contingency measures. There are no control measures – EPA-approved or otherwise – that require

fleet turnover. The reductions from fleet turnover are nothing more than assumptions based on

voluntary future activity that fail to meet the Act’s requirements for enforceable measures.

Moreover, EPA has made no finding – nor could it because there are no facts to support

such a finding – that the assumed reductions from fleet turnover have occurred. It is arbitrary and

capricious for EPA to approve 2008 and 2010 ROP contingency measure demonstrations, or

provide credit to the attainment year contingency demonstration, when EPA has made no finding

that such fleet turnover reductions have actually occurred. EPA action on contingency measures

would therefore violate the Act or be arbitrary and capricious.

V. EPA APPROVAL OF THE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION VIOLATES THE

CLEAN AIR ACT BECAUSE THE DEMONSTRATION RELIES ON WAIVER

MEASURES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO EPA, OR APPROVED

BY EPA, AS PART OF THE SIP.

The proposed approval of the 2004 SIP’s attainment demonstration violates the Act

because waiver measures have not been EPA approved as part of the SIP and have not been

submitted with these plan revisions. The total tonnage attributed to these unsubmitted and nonSIP approved measures in the attainment demonstration accounts for roughly 79.3 tons per day of
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 The attainment demonstration includes credit given to waiver measures. See 74 Fed. Reg. at 17

33943 Table 5. Of these claimed reductions, neither EPA nor the rule revisions identify the

amount of reductions purportedly achieved by waiver measures. 

 “The term ‘applicable implementation plan’ means the portion (or portions) of the 18

implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which as been approved under section 7410

of this title, or promulgated under section 7410(c) of this title, or promulgated or approved

pursuant to regulations promulgated under section 7601(d) of this title and which implements the

Page 11 of 22

VOC and 97.2 tons per day of Nox in 2010. See 74 Fed. Reg. At 33936 Table 1; ARB Staff 17

Report at Table III-6. The Act requires that the control measures used to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard must be enforceable and comply with the requirements of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§

7410(a)(2)(A), 7502(c)(6). These measures must be submitted to EPA for EPA review and

approval. See Section I, supra. Because such measures are not in the plan and have not been

submitted as part of these revisions, EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstration. 

VI. EPA APPROVAL OF THE RATE OF PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION

VIOLATES THE CLEAN AIR ACT BECAUSE THE DEMONSTRATION RELIES

ON WAIVER MEASURES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO EPA, OR

APPROVED BY EPA, AS PART OF THE SIP.

The Rate of Progress (“ROP”) demonstration relies on reductions from waiver measures,

which have not been submitted to EPA for review and approval as a part of the SIP. See Sections

II and V, supra; 74 Fed. Reg. at 33942; 2008 SIP Clarification at 6. EPA erroneously claims that

the ROP demonstration “does not depend on reductions from . . . State waiver measures or on

reductions from any measures that are not creditable under the terms of section 182(b)(1) [42

U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(1)].” 74 Fed. Reg. at 33942. Footnote 20 of the proposed rule concedes that

the ROP demonstration relies on “baseline measures” which the prosed rule defines to include

waiver measures. Id. at 33942 n.20, 33936

The Act requires that states may only take credit for reductions from SIP-approved

measures in ROP.

Except as provided under subparagraph (D), emissions reductions are creditable

toward the 15 percent required under subparagraph (A) to the extent they have

actually occurred, as of 6 years after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 [enacted Nov. 15, 1990], from the implementation of measures

required under the applicable implementation plan, rules promulgated by the 18
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

relevant requirements of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(q).

Page 12 of 22

Administrator, or a title V permit.

42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(1)(c) (emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c)(2)(B).

Longstanding EPA interpretation of the Act’s ROP provisions only allow for reductions

from measures that are enforceable parts of the SIP. “Compliance with the milestone and RFP

requirements of the Act requires that all of the creditable emission reductions be approved as

enforceable parts of the SIP.” 65 Fed. Reg. 6091, 6098 (Feb. 8, 2000) citing 57 Fed. Reg. at

13517; 65 Fed. Reg. 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule).

The proposed rule’s approval of the ROP demonstration will violate the Act, which

expressly requires ROP reductions to come from SIP-approved measures. EPA refuses to compel

the ARB to submit waiver measures for review and approval as part of the SIP, so EPA’s

unflinching reliance on such measures for ROP violates the Act.

Moreover, EPA’s decision to find that the 2004 SIP demonstrates ROP has no factual

basis. The District’s RFP demonstration in the 2004 SIP and in the 2008 SIP Clarification fail to

distinguish between reductions from SIP-approved regulations and from waiver measures. 

Regardless, given the significant amount of reductions from waiver measures and EPA’s failure to

conduct an analysis of waiver measures’ reductions and find them creditable, the ROP

demonstration fails to demonstrate ROP, EPA approval of the ROP demonstration has no factual

basis and is arbitrary and capricious. 

VII. THE 2004 SIP AND THE STATE STRATEGY FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE AN

ENFORCEABLE PROGRAM.

The 2004 SIP and the 2003 Final State Strategy fail to demonstrate a monitoring program

for waiver measures. EPA regulations implementing the Act specifically require each plan to

make this demonstration.

Each plan must set forth a control strategy which includes . . . A description of

enforcement methods including, but not limited to: (1) Procedures for monitoring

compliance with each of the selected control measures; (2) Procedures for handling

violations; and (3) A designation of agency responsibility for enforcement of

implementation. 
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 13 of 22

40 C.F.R. § 51.111.

The plans lack procedures for monitoring compliance “with each of the selected control

measures.” Id. Because the plans do not provide monitoring for waiver measures, and EPA has

not approved each individual waiver measures’ monitoring provisions, California and the District

have not made the demonstrations required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.111. EPA’s proposed approval of

the 2004 SIP without approved monitoring provisions for waiver measures violates the Act.

VIII. SECTION 193 OF THE ACT PROVIDES NO REFUGE FOR EPA’S DECISION

TO EXCLUDE WAIVER MEASURES FROM THE SIP.

 

In response to AIR’s November 17, 2008 comments, EPA re-proposed its action on the

2004 SIP and created a fiction for why EPA may approve the 2004 SIP when ARB refuses to

submit on-road and non-road control measures (“waiver measures”). EPA relies principally on

section 193 of the Act, and the argument that Congress somehow ratified EPA’s practice of

approving California SIPs that do not include measures for which EPA has granted waivers under

section 209 of the Act. See 74 Fed. Reg. 33938-33939. The plain language of the Act expressly

requires that California submit the control measures, rules, and regulations used to meet the Act’s

requirements as part of the State Implementation Plan. Moreover, nothing in Title II of the Act or

section 209 provide any basis for EPA’s position. 

Section 193 provides that formal rules, notices, or guidance documents promulgated by the

Administrator before the effective date of the 1990 amendments shall remain in effect except

when the Act provides otherwise or when inconsistent with the Act.

Each regulation, standard, rule, notice, order and guidance promulgated or issued

by the Administrator under this Act, as in effect before the date of the enactment of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 shall remain in effect according to its

terms, except to the extent otherwise provided under this Act, inconsistent with any

provision of this Act, or revised by the Administrator. 

42 U.S.C. § 7515.

In the proposed rule, EPA takes the untenable position that Congress must expressly

disapprove of EPA’s claimed long-standing interpretation or Congressional silence equates to a
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 EPA fails to cite to any such interpretations, rules, guidance documents, or any other source

19

for this claimed long-standing interpretation. 

Page 14 of 22

ratification of EPA’s interpretation. 74 Fed. Reg. At 33939. Because the Act itself requires that 19

control measures used for attainment, rate of progress, contingency measures, or any other

requirement must be approved by EPA as a part of the SIP, see Section I, supra, section 193 does

not permit EPA to allow waiver measures to remain outside of the SIP. 

IX. THE PROPOSED APPROVAL VIOLATES THE ACT BECAUSE EPA HAS

FAILED TO REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES.

EPA fails to require that the 2004 SIP include Transportation Control Measures, which are

enforceable measures to reduce pollution from the Valley’s transportation system. 42 U.S.C. §

7511a(d)(1)(A). The plain language and legislative history of the Act, as well as the deliberate

structure of the Act, demonstrate that Transportation Control Measures are required when vehicle

miles traveled increase in a region. 

Among the additional provisions applicable to an extreme ozone nonattainment area is

section 182(d)(1)(A), which declares that each state in which a severe or extreme area is located

“shall ... submit a revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation control

strategies and transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in

vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area ...” 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(d)(1)(A). 

Stated more simply, a severe or extreme nonattainment area for ozone must adopt enforceable

transportation control measures that offset the additional emissions resulting from an increase in

vehicle miles traveled. 

The House Committee Report that accompanied adoption of section 182 during the 1990

Clean Air Act Amendments explains how to calculate emissions increases attributed to VMT,

stating: “The baseline for determining whether there has been growth in emissions due to

increased VMT is the level of vehicle emissions that would occur if VMT held constant in the

area.” 2 S. Comm. on Environment & Public Works, 103rd Cong., A Legislative History of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Comm. Print 1993) at 3266 (H.R. Rep. No. 101-490

(1990)). 

There is no dispute that VMT has increased within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and

that vehicle emissions are higher than they would be if VMT held constant in the area. EPA’s

failure to require transportation control measures violates the Act. 
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 15 of 22

X. THE COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVE 20 TONS PER DAY OF NOx AND 15 TONS

PER DAY OF VOC REDUCTIONS IN THE 2003 STATE STRATEGY IS NOT

ENFORCEABLE.

The 2003 Final State Strategy includes a commitment to achieve in the aggregate a

tonnage reduction by the attainment year, 74 Fed. Reg. at 33938, which renders the commitments

unenforceable as a practical matter.

The 2003 Final State Strategy includes “commitments” that are unenforceable. All of the

“commitments” include promises by ARB staff to bring an identified measure to the ARB. See,

e.g., State Strategy at II-A-13, 15, 16; State Strategy at II-B-15, 23. There is no commitment by

the Board itself to adopt a particular strategy to achieve specific reductions by a specific

implementation date. The act of proposing a strategy to the Board is not a commitment to adopt a

strategy. EPA recognizes this fundamental defect. 74 Fed. Reg. at 33938. 

EPA proposes to approve a “global” commitment by ARB to adopt unidentified new

measures, by 2008 to achieve global reductions to be implemented by 2010 in the San Joaquin

Valley. See, e.g., State Strategy at II-A-13, 15, 16; State Strategy at II-B-15, 23. Enforcement of

this type of commitment is extremely difficult given the open-ended commitment to adopt

unspecified strategies. Citizens can’t enforce vague control measures that do not commit the

ARB to adopt any particular regulations by 2008. Citizens are left with enforcing the “global”

tonnage amounts after 2008. 

Such global tonnage “commitments” could be interpreted as “goals” by the Ninth Circuit,

and under Ninth Circuit precedent, citizens cannot enforce a SIP’s “goals.” See Bayview Hunters

Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitain Transportation Commission, 366 F.3d 692 (9th Cir.

2004). 

Even if citizens could enforce these vague global commitments, enforcement is very

difficult: when no measures are submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SIP, citizens have no idea

which measures ARB uses to satisfy the total tonnage commitments. ARB has in no instance

disclosed which measures that it has adopted to achieve this commitment nor submitted any

regulations to EPA to demonstrate that it has complied with the total tonnage commitment. In the

situation where a state commits to adopt measures, and adopts such measures before EPA action

on the plan that included the commitments, EPA should not allow the state to receive credit from

such commitments toward any requirement without reviewing whether the adopted measures

themselves are enforceable and otherwise comply with the Act. Approving the plan with this

“commitment” would thus be arbitrary and capricious.
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 See Letter from David Howekamp to James Wells, dated September 16, 1994, attached as 20

Exh. 5; Letter from David Howekamp to James Wells, dated March 20, 1995, attached as Exh. 6;

Letter from David Howekamp to James Wells, dated April 21, 1995, attached as Exh. 7. 

Page 16 of 22

EPA has rejected the kind of flexibility that ARB seeks now to adopt measures to achieve

aggregate tonnages. During the 1994 Ozone SIP approval process, California requested that EPA

give it flexibility to adjust the commitments in the SIP without submitting changes to EPA for

approval. EPA rejected that request:

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented that, as

EPA recognized in the proposed approval, some of California’s specific strategies

may require adjustment as actual rules are developed. CEPA stated that “we will

retain the flexibility to revise the SIP as long as the emission reductions continue

to provide for attainment.” 

As stated in the NPRM, EPA supports the State’s flexibility to revise the SIP, but

cautions that EPA must review SIP revisions for approveability under Sections

110(l) and 193.

62 Fed. Reg. at 1158; see also 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l). 

XI. THE PESTICIDE STRATEGY MUST BE ENFORCEABLE.

 

The proposed approval of the 2004 SIP states that the plan does not rely on reductions

from California’s pesticide strategy to demonstrate attainment. 74 Fed. Reg. 33936. Nevertheless

in 2004, the ARB submitted a proposed strategy on pesticides as part of the 2003 State Strategy,

and that strategy applies to the San Joaquin Valley. In early 2008, ARB submitted regulations

purporting to control pesticide VOC to EPA for approval under a federal court order. EPA has

not proposed action on the pesticide regulation. 

California submitted the Pesticide Element, a part of the 1994 Ozone SIP, to control smogforming VOC emissions from pesticides. The Pesticide Element as submitted in 1994 did not

satisfy EPA, so EPA requested a more definitive promise.20

On May 9, 1995, Department of Pesticide Regulation (“DPR”) Director James Wells

complied, and wrote a memorandum to California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) Executive

Officer James Boyd (the “Wells Memorandum”).
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 17 of 22

The Department of Pesticide Regulation commits to adopt and submit to U.S.

EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce volatile organic

compound emissions from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides by

specific percentages of the 1990 base year emissions, by specific years, and in

specific nonattainment areas (described in 40 C.F.R. 81.305), as listed in the

following table:

Reductions from 1990 Baseline

Ozone Nonattainment Area 1996 1999 2002 2005

Sacramento Metro 8% 12% 16% 20%

San Joaquin Valley 8% 12% 16% 20%

South Coast 8% 12% 16% 20%

Southeast Desert 8% 12% 16% 20%

Ventura 8% 12% 16% 20%

Wells Memorandum, attached as Exh. 8. ARB submitted the Wells Memorandum to EPA, calling

the memorandum “a clarification” of what was “in the SIP.” 

With this enforceable promise in hand, EPA proposed approval of the 1994 Ozone SIP. 

61 Fed. Reg. 10920 (March 18, 1996) (“Proposed Rule”). EPA described the Wells

Memorandum as a “clarification” of the “technical details of the pesticide commitment.” 61 Fed.

Reg. at 10935. EPA stated that the “clarification is considered part of the SIP.” Id. EPA

referenced the Wells Memorandum and the ARB letter in a footnote. Id. 

On June 13, 1996, ARB sent another letter to EPA Region IX Air Division Director David

Howekamp (the “Howekamp Letter”) asking for various corrections to the Proposed Rule.

Howekamp Letter, attached as Exh. 9. The Howekamp Letter requested that EPA delete the table

“Reductions from 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines,” stated that the pesticide “commitment is

for a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2005 in each SIP area, except [San Diego],” and stated

“we only took credit in the attainment year: SJV 1999 = 12%, Sac 2005 = 20%, Ven 2005 = 20%,

SED 2007 = 20%, SC 2010 = 20%.” Id. at A-2 (emphasis added).

In the Final Rule, EPA reaffirmed its intent to approve an enforceable Pesticide Element. 

62 Fed. Reg. 1150, 1169-1170 (Jan. 8, 1997) (“Final Rule”). In the Final Rule, EPA responded to
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 18 of 22

a comment from the Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) that questioned whether the

“pesticide measure should be granted credit” because the proposed rule referred to a June 1997

deadline to adopt regulations while “the SIP itself recites a possible, not obligatory, 1998 date.”

Id. at 1169 (emphasis added); see also EDC Comment Letter at 4, attached as Exh. 6. EPA

responded to the comment by quoting the Wells Memorandum – including its June 15, 1997

deadline – and calling it a “SIP clarification.” 62 Fed. Reg. at 1170. EPA then approved the

“pesticide measure.” Id. 

The Wells memorandum is the only document which included the June 15, 1997

obligatory date by which DPR would adopt any regulations necessary to achieve the specified

reductions.

Several of the groups commenting here successfully enforced the Wells Memorandum in

U.S. District Court. See El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F.Supp.2d 912

(E.D. Cal. 2006). On August 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit held that the California SIP does not

include the “Wells Memorandum.” El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539

F.3d 1062, 1069-1072. The Ninth Circuit stated: 

Because we conclude that the schedule and interim standards of the Wells

Memorandum are not part of the SIP, California would not have been in violation

of the SIP even if it had made no decision about the need for further regulations. 

Id. at 1069. 

The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is different than that which EPA disclosed to the public

in its 1997 approval, when it responded to the EDC comment. This interpretation is also different

than what EPA said in a recent 2008 rulemaking. 

The EPA’s proposed and final rules approving the Ventura Pesticide SIP revision rearticulates the Pesticide Commitment. See 73 Fed. Reg. 21885, 21886 (Apr. 23, 2008); 73 Fed.

Reg. 41277, 41281 (July 18, 2008). EPA states that the commitment is to adopt any rules

necessary by June 15, 1997 to achieve a percentage reduction in 2005 and a tonnage reduction in

the attainment year. 73 Fed. Reg. at 41281 (“our interpretation of the original Pesticide Element

commitment as having both a tonnage reduction commitment in addition to the percent reduction

commitment”). EPA then describes the commitment as including that June 15, 1997 date to adopt

“any regulations necessary.” Id.

Under the original Pesticide Element, for the Ventura County nonattainment area

(Ventura), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) committed to
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 19 of 22

adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce

VOC emissions from agricultural and structural pesticides by 20 percent of the

1990 base year emissions by 2005.

Id. at 41277.

EPA also explained what makes the pesticide strategy enforceable.

Commenters and EPA both agree that the State’s SIP commitment (from the 1994

Ozone SIP) with respect to VOC emissions reductions from use of pesticides in

Ventura County is defined in terms of percent reduction from base year emissions.

The point of disagreement is that EPA states in the proposed rule that the

commitment is a two-fold commitment defined in terms of both a percent

reduction and a tonnage reduction. 

Our interpretation of the original Pesticide Element commitment as having both a

tonnage reduction commitment in addition to the percent reduction commitment

rests on general and specific grounds. First, EPA has traditionally found

committal measures, such as the commitment to reduce VOC emissions in the

Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP, to be enforceable, and thus

approveable, only if such measures identify the responsible party, adoption dates

for rules, implementation dates, and emissions reductions in terms of emissions

rates (such as tons per day) equal to the credit taken in the RFP or attainment plan

for the committal measure. The tonnage specification provides the essential link

between the committal measure and the RFP or attainment demonstration. See the

general discussion of committal measures in EPA’s final rule approving the 1994

Ozone SIP at 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997), at 1155–1157, and the specific

discussion of the committal measures submitted as part of the 1994 Ozone SIP at

1157, column 3. In this case, the tonnage commitment (for 2005) links the

original Pesticide Element commitment to the approved attainment demonstration

for Ventura County. Each specific element of a committal measure, once the

measure is approved by EPA, is considered to be enforceable. Thus, we believe

that EPA would not have found the original Pesticide Element commitment for

Ventura approveable unless the measure included the 2.37 tons per day reduction

in pesticide VOC emissions in 2005 that was credited to the measure in the 1994

Ozone SIP.

Id. at 41281.
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

 See 2003 State Strategy at III-C-3. 21

 The language of this commitment in the 2003 Final State Strategy tracks verbatim the 22

language in the Wells Memorandum.

 See letter from Alegría De La Cruz to Mary-Ann Warmerdam, et al., dated August 18, 2009, 23

attached as Exh. 10. 

Page 20 of 22

The 2003 State Strategy includes a “Proposed Strategy to Implement the Existing Pesticide

Strategy.” The strategy states: 21

As described in the 1994 SIP and U.S. EPA’s notice approving that plan, DPR

committed to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides through voluntary measures,

with a regulatory backstop. Specifically, DPR committed to adopt and submit to

U.S. EPA by June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions

from agricultural and commercial structural pesticides by specific percentages of the

1990 base year emissions, by specific years, and in specific nonattainment areas. For

the South Coast, the commitment is to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides to a

level 20 percent below 1990 base year emissions by the attainment year.

Id. Given the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation, EPA should disapprove the “Proposed Strategy to 22

Implement the Existing Pesticide Strategy” in the 2003 State Strategy because the commitment to

adopt regulations is, as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit, discretionary. Several groups believe that

the Howekamp Letter is enforceable, and have sent a 60-day notice of intent to sue to California

state officials for their failure to comply with the Howekamp Letter and the Pesticide Element.23

XII. EPA SHOULD NOT GRANT CREDIT FOR REDUCTIONS FROM DISTRICT

RULE 4570 TOWARDS ATTAINMENT AND RATE OF PROGRESS.

This proposal seeks to allow the District to take credit for reductions from the Rule 4570,

yet EPA has proposed to disapprove the rule because the District has failed to demonstrate that the

Rule is RACT. 74 Fed. Reg. at 33949. For the reasons set forth in the comment letters dated

August 31, 2009 submitted by the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and Earthjustice,

EPA should not allow credit from Rule 4570 in the 2004 SIP. 
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 21 of 22

XIII. EPA SHOULD NOT GRANT CREDIT FOR REDUCTIONS FROM THE

REFORMULATED GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL RULE TOWARDS

ATTAINMENT AND RATE OF PROGRESS.

This proposal seeks to allow the District to take credit for reductions from ARB’s

reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel rule. For the reasons set forth in the comment letter to

Jeffrey Buss from the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, dated August 31, 2009, EPA

should not allow credit from the fuel rule in the 2004 SIP.

XIV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, AIR respectfully requests that EPA disapprove the 2004

SIP, the 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy. Thank you for your time,

consideration, and effort. 

Sincerely,

Brent Newell, Legal Director Sal Partida, Co-Chair

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment Committee for a Better Arvin

Tom Frantz, President Adriano Martinez, Attorney

Association of Irritated Residents Natural Resources Defense Council

Gary Rodriguez Jesus Jaime, President

South Shafter Project Committee Shafter Chapter League of United Latin

American Citezens LULAC
Ms. Frances Wicher

Comments on Approval of 2004 SIP, 2008 SIP Clarification, and the 2003 Final State Strategy

August 31, 2009

Page 22 of 22

Renee Nelson, President Francisco Martines

Clean Water and Air Matter Comité Unido de Plainview

Guadalupe Nuñez Irma Medellin

La Voz de Tonyville El Quinto Sol de America

Saul Morales Lucy Hernandez

La Nueva Esperanza de Alpaugh Comité West Goshen

Eunice Martinez Lisa Kayser-Grant

United for a Change in Tooleville Moms Clean Air Network

Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer

Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano