P Pr ov i di ng Leg al & Tech ni cal Assi st an ce t o t he Gr ass ro ot s M ov emen t f or E nvi ro nm ent al J ust i ce P 

# Cen ter on Rac e, P overty, & the Envi ronme nt

47 Ke ar ny S tre et, S uit e 804 Sa n F ra nci sco, C A 94108 415/346-4179 • fa x 415/346-8723

bnewell @crpe-ej .o rg Ra l p h Sa nt iag o Ab as c al (19 34- 1997) Dir e c to r 1990- 1997
L uke W. C ol e (19 62- 2009) Ex e c utiv e Di r e c to r 1997- 2009

Carol ine Far rel l Acting E xecutive Direc tor

Lupe Martinez Direc tor o f Or ganizing
Gustavo Aguirre Assistan t Direc tor o f Or ganizing

Da ni e l a S imun ov ic Ir maMe de l l in Refugio Gutierr ez Community Or ganizer s Do n Sp r ad l in Direc tor o f Devel opme nt

Laure n Richte r Devel opme nt As sistant
Va leri e Goro spe Administrative Assistan t

Brent Newel l Le gal Direc tor
Ingr id Brostro m • Aleg ría De La C ruz Jennifer Giddings • Mar ybe ll e Nze gwu Sof ia Sar ab ia Staff Attorneys
Joh an ne s E p ke Le gal Inter n
August 31, 2009 By e le c tro nicma il
Fr ance s Wi cher Offic e of A ir Planning ( AI R-2) U

. S

. E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o nA g e n c y , R e g i o nIX 75 Hawthor

ne Stree t San Fr ancisc o, CA 94105-3901 wicher .fra

nces@e pa.g ov Re : Co m m e nt s o n Ap pr ov al a nd P r om ulg at ion of Im ple m e nt at ion P lan s: 1- Hou r Ozone Extre m e Ar ea P lan f or San Joaqu in Valley, CA (Doc ket No. EPA –R09–OAR–2008–0693).
Dea r Ms. Wicher: The Center

on Race , Poverty

& the Environment submits these comments on behalf of As so c iatio n o f I

rr itate d Re sid e nts , Cl e an Wate r a nd Ai r M atte r, Com ité Wes t G os he n, Com ité Unido de Plainview, Comité Residentes Org anizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano Commi ttee for a Be tter Arvin, Moms Clean Air N etwork, N atura l Resource s Defe nse Council, L a Nue va Espera nza de Alpaugh, El Quinto Sol de Amer ica, South Shafter Proje ct Commit tee, Shaf ter C h a p t e r Le a gu e o f

U n i t e d Lat i nA m e r i c anC i t i z e n s , U n i t e d f o r a C h an g e i nT o o l e v i l l e , an d La Voz de Tony

ville (collec tively

“AI R”).
I. INTRODUCTION.
AI R urg es EPA to disapprove the 2004 Ex treme O zone Attainment Demonstration Plan (“2004 SI P”), the 2008 SI P Cl arific ation, and the 2003 State Strate g y beca use these pla

n revisions rely on reduc tions from alrea dy -adopte d state rules that are not SI P-approve d and not included a sMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 2 of 22 part of the se plan re visions (herea fter “ waiver measure s”). EPA’s pr oposed appr oval violates the Clean Air Ac t or is arbitrar y and ca pricious bec ause ( 1) the inventory relies on r eductions fr om waiver measure s; (2) conting ency measure s rely

on excess reduc tions from waiver measure s and unenfor cea

ble re ductions from flee t turnover; (3) the attainment demonstration relies on re du c tio ns fr om w a ive r m e a sure s; ( 4) the pla n f a ils to d e mon str ate re a so na ble fu rt he r p ro g re ss beca use of r eliance on waiver measure s; (5) the plans f ail to demonstrate the pla ns include adequate provisions to monit or complianc e; (6) se ction 193 of the Ac t provides no re fug e for EPA’s proposal to allow wa iver mea sures to re main unsubmitt ed and out of the SI P; (7) EPA has fa ile d to re qu ir e Tr ans po rt atio n Co ntr ol M e a sure s whe n v e hic le mil e s tr ave le d h ave inc re a se d in the Valley ; (8) the c ommitm ent in the 2003 State Strategy to achieve 20 tons per day of NOx and 15 ton s p e r d ay

of VO C r e du c tio ns is n ot e nf or c e a ble ; ( 9) the 20 03 State Str ate g y inc lud e s a c omm itm e nt t o c ontin

ue imp le me ntatio n o f t

he Pe sti c ide El e me nt o f t

he 19 94 Ozo ne State Implementation Plan (“SI P”), which ha s an unenf orce able c ommitm ent to adopt re gulations as interpre ted by

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appea ls; (10) District Rule 4570, published at 74 Fe d. Reg . 33948 (Jul y

14, 2009) is fundame ntally defic ient, y et EPA g rants cr edit for the r eductions from the r ule in the attainment demonstration and ROP; and (11) California r efor mulated g asoline (RF G) and

die se l f ue l r ule ame ndme nts , p ub lis he d at 74 F e d. Re g . 3 31 96 (Jul y 14 , 2 00 9) , is unenfor cea

ble, y et EPA g rants cr edit for the r eductions fr om the rule in the attainment de mon str atio n a

nd RO P.
E P A s h o u l d

d i s ap p ro v e t h e 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 S t at e S tra t egy beca use of these fundame ntal defic iencies.
A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound.
In p art be c a us e of e xemp tio ns fo r a g ri c ult

ur a l and oil pr od uc tio n s ourc e s, and

ina de qu ate regulations, the San J oaquin Valley failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standa rd by November

15, 1999. 73 Fe d. Reg . 61381 (Oc t. 16, 2008). As a r esult of that fa ilure, the Ac t rec lassified the Valley to a seve re nonattainment are a by operation of law. Id . EPA subsequently found that Ca lif or nia fa ile d to su

bmi t r e qu ir e d c omp on e nts of a se ve re are a

pla n. 67 F e d. Re g . 6 17 84 (O c t. 2, 2002). On Apr il 16, 2004, EPA gra nted California’ s reque st to reclassify the Valley

to an extreme nonattainment ar ea a nd require d the Valley

to submitan extreme attainment plan by November

15, 2004 and Ne w Source Review program amendments by May 15, 2005. 69 Fe d. Reg . 20550 (April 16, 2004).
EPA resc inded the 1-hour ozone standard e ffe ctive one year from the e ffe ctive date of the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“ standard” or “standa rds”) desig nation. 69 Fe d. Reg . 23951, 23969 (April 30, 2004); 69 F ed. Reg . 23858 (April 30, 2004). Eve n though E PA has resc inded the 1-hour

ozone standard, the disc retionar y and mandatory

require ments applicable 1-Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Renee Sharp and B ill W alker , P ARTI CL E C I V I CS : H OW C LEAN ER A I R I N C AL I F OR NI A W I LL 1 S AVE L I VE S AND S AVE M ONEY , Environmental WorkingGroup at 19, attache d as Exh. 1. Americ an L

ungAssociation, S TA TE OF TH E A IR : 2009, attache d as Exh. 2. 2Id . at 21. 3 Id . at 20. 4 Pag e 3 of 22 hour ozone nonattainment ar eas r emain in ef fec t. See 69 F e d. Re g . 2 39 51 , 2 39 72 -2 39 74 (A pr il 30 , 2 00 4) ; see also South Coast Air Qualit y Manage ment District v. U.S. E.P.A

. , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
NO x an d V OC are ozo ne (c omm on ly kn own a s “ smo g ” ) p re c ur so rs and fi ne pa rt ic le (P M2 .5 ) p re c ur so rs . B oth ozo ne and

PM2 .5 le ve ls i n th e San Joa qu in V a lle y c on sti tut e a

pu bli c health cr isis. The Environmental Working G roup published the Air Resour ces B oard’ s estimates that show 1,292 San J oaquin Valley residents die e ach year

from long -term e x posure to PM2.5. 1 Ozo ne and

PM p oll uti on

e xac e rb ate re sp ir ator

y c on dit ion s, inc lud inga sthma , in c re a se hospitaliz ations and eme rg ency room visits, contribute to cardia c illnesses, and inc rea se school and wor k absente eism. The Ame rica n LungAssociation ra

nks the San J oaquin Valley counties 2 of Ke rn, Tular e, and F resno a s the third, fourth, and sixth m ost oz one-polluted c ounties in the United States, respe ctively

. For long te rm exposure to PM2.5, the America n LungAssociation 3 ranks the San Joaquin Valley counties of Ke rn, Tular e, King s, and F resno a s the first, fourth, se ve nth , a nd e ig hth mos t po llute d c ounti e s. 4 A document pr epar ed jointly by the California A ir Resource s Boa rd and the Americ an LungAssociation desc ribes ozone as
a powe rful oxidant that can damag e the r espirator y trac t, causinginflammation and ir ri tatio n, and

ind uc e s sy mpt oms su c h a s c ou g hin g , c he st t ig htn e ss, sh or tne ss of bre ath, and wor seningof asthma sy mptoms. Oz one in suffic ient doses incre ases the pe rmea

bility of lungcells, re nderingthem more susce ptible to tox ins and microor g anisms. The g reatest risk is to thos e who a re more active outdoor s duringsmoggy

periods, such a s children, athletes, and outdoor wor kers. Exposure to levels of ozone above the cur rent ambient air quality

standard le ads to lung inflammation and lungtissue damag e, and a reduc tion in the amount of air inhaled int o th e lun g s. Re c e nt e vid e nc e ha s, fo r t he fi rs t ti me , li nk e d th e on se t of a sthma to expos ure of

elevated ozone levels in exercisingchildren ( McConnell 2002).Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

The California

Air Resourc es B oard a

nd the Amer ican L

ungAssociation of California , 5 R E C E NT R ES EA R C H F I NDI NGS : H EA L TH E FFECT S O F P ARTI CUL AT E M ATTER AND O Z ONE A IR P OL L UTI ON , J anuar

y 2004 at 2. SeeJ ane H all and Victor

Br ajer , T HE B EN EFI T S O F M EE TI NG F ED ER A L C L EA N A IR 6 S TA NDA RDS I N TH E S OUTH C OAS T AND S AN J OAQUI N V AL L EY A I R B AS I NS , November 2008, attache d as Exh. 3. See Select 8 Summaries, attac hed as Exh. 4. 7 Pag e 4 of 22 Th e se le ve ls o f o zon e a lso re du c e c ro p a nd tim be r y ie lds , d ama g e nativ e pla

nts , and dama g e mate ri a ls s uc h a s r ub be r, pa int s, fa

br ic , a nd pla sti c s. 5
Th e do c ume nt a lso sh ow s th e signif ic ant h e a lthe ff

e c ts a nd c os ts o f e xpos ur e to f

ine pa rt ic ulate matter a nd ozone in California.
In late 2008, Jane V. Ha ll, Ph.D., and Victor B raje r, Ph.D., published a compr ehensive analy sis of the eff

ects fr om not meeting the 1997 8-hour ozone standa rd and the 2008 PM 2.5. Th e he a lthe ff

e c ts o f n ot m e e tin gthe se sta nd ard s, and

the ir c on c omi tant e c on omi c va lue s, inf lic t a conser vative mea surable c ost of $5.7 billion each y ear –$ 1, 60 0 p e r p e rs on

– in the San Joa qu in Valley

. Whil e these data a re not dire ctly

related to the fa ilure to meet the 1- hour ozone standar d, 6 attainingthe 1-hour sta

ndard r efle cts prog ress towa rds attainingthe 8-hour sta ndard a nd the 2008 PM2.5 standard (NO x and VOC a re a lso PM2.5 precursors) . Thus, a mea ningf ul plan to attain the 1-hour standa

rd by the 2010 dea dline also means pr og ress towa rds solving the health and economic c onsequenc es of the a ir quality crisis in the San J oaquin Valley

. Be tween 2006 a

nd 2008, the San J oaquin Valley violated the 1-hour

ozone standard on a

n aver ag e of 13 da

y s eac h y ear

and has violate d the 1997 8-hour ozone standa rd an a vera g e of 77 day s eac h y ear
. 7
B. St at ut or y Ba c kgr ound. “The Clean Air Ac t sets forth a c ooperative state-f eder al sche me for improvingthe nation’s air qua lity .” Vi

gil v . Le av itt , 366 F.3d 1025, 1029 ( 9th Cir. 2004). Congr ess ena cted the 19 70 Cle an A ir

Ac t ( “ the Ac t” ), a s ame nd e d in 19 77 and 19 90 , “ to p ro te c t and

e nh anc e the qu a lity of the Nation’s air re source s so as to promote the public hea lth and welfa re a nd the produc tive capa city of its population.” 42 U.S.C. § 7401(b)(1). The Act re lies on a sche me of c ooperative fede ralism, wher eby

the states deve lop and submit plans and regulations to attain the health-ba sedMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

“The term ‘a

pplicable implementation plan’ means the por tion (or portions) of the 8 implementation plan, or most rec ent re vision thereof, which as be en appr oved under section 7410 of this titl e, or pr omulgated under section 7410(c ) of this title, or promulg ated or approve d pursuant to re gulations promulgated under section 7601(d) of this titl e and which implements the rele vant re quirements of this cha pter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(q). Pag e 5 of 22 standards. EPA’ s role is to ensure that such plans and r egulations conform to the minimum require ments of the Ac t.
Be cause the San J oaquin Valley is an extreme ozone nonattainment ar ea, the 2004 SI P, the 2008 SI P Cl arific ation, and the 2003 F inal State Strateg y must comply

with the require ments of sections 110, 172 and 182 of the Clean Air A ct, amongother re quirements of the Act, or EPA ha s a mandatory

duty to disapprove the state’s submissions, in whole or in part. See42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a) , 7410(k), 7502, 7511a

. One of the fundamental principles of the Clean Air A ct is that State I mplementation Plans must contain the emission lim itations and control measur es to provide f or attainment of the health-ba sed standar ds by the applica

ble dea dline, provide re asonable further prog ress, a

nd comply with any other a pplicable r equire ment of the Ac t. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2) (A), 7502(c) (6). Similarly , conting ency measure s “shall be include d in the plan ” to take e ffe ct without fu rt he r a c tio n b y

the state or

the a dmi nis tr ator . 4 2 U .S. C. § 75 02 (c )( 9) (e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se e als o 42 U. S.C. § 7 51 1a (c )( 9) . In a dd iti on , Ca lif or nia mus t de mon str ate that “ the plan , a s r e vis e d, wi ll provide for

attainment of the ozone national ambient air qua lity standard” by

the dea dline for a

n extreme are a. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c )(2) (A).
L ike wi se , Ca lif

or nia mus t de mon str ate Rate of Pr ogre ss, that “ the plan , a s r e vis e d, wi ll result in VOC [or NOx ] reductions” equa l to at least a 3% r eduction of ba seline emissions. 42 U. S.C. § 7 51 1a (c )( 2) (B ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . T he se re du c tio ns mus t c on fo rm to s pe c if ic c re dib ili ty require ments in sections 182(b)(1) (C) and ( D) of the Act. See42 U.S.C. §§ 7511a(c) (2)( B) and (C). Section 182(b) (1)( C) mandates that “emissions reductions ar e cr editable . . . to the e x tent th atth e y have ac tually occurred from the implementation of me asure s require d under the applicable impleme ntation plan , rules promulg ated by the Administrator, or a

permit under subchapte r V of this Chapter .” 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)( 1) (C) (e mphasis added)

. 8
E P A ’ s r e gu l at i o n s i mp l e m e n tth e r e qu i r e m e n t s o f th e A c tan d

e c h o i t s m an d at e s
. A l r e a dyadopted r egulations on which a plan r elies must be included in the plan itself. “ Revisions of a plan, or a ny portion thereof

, will not be considere d part of an appli cable plan until such revisionsMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

“Plan means a

n implementation plan approve d or promulg ated unde r sec tion 110 of 172 of 9 the Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.100(j) (“ 110 of 172” in orig inal). Pag e 6 of 22 have be en appr oved by

the Administrator in ac corda nce w ith this part.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.105 9 (empha sis added). “ Eac h plan must demonstrate that the me asure s, rules, and r egulations contained in it ar e ade quate to provide for the timely attainment and maintena nce of the national sta nd ard that it imp le me nts .” 40 C.F .R. § 5 1. 11 2( a ). EPA ’s re gulatio ns pla inl y re qu ir e that Emission l imitations and other measure s nece ssary

for attainment and maintenanc e of any national standar d, including a ny measure s nece ssary

to implement the require ments of subpart L must be adopted a s rules and r egulations enforc eable by the State ag ency
. Copies of all s uch rules and regulations must be submitted with the plan

. 40 C.F.R. § 51.281 (empha sis added). The Ge nera l Preamble, EPA’s guidance on implementation of Title Iof the Ac t, further de mon str ate s th at th e state ’s a lr e a dy a do pte d me a sure s mu st b e su bmi tte d to EPAand

inc lud e d in the State Implementation Plan in order to satisfy the re quirements of the Act. One pur pose of a SI P is t o perf

orm demonstrations of how va rious g oals will be achie ved. The se g oals are of three ty pes: Attainment of the NAAQS, maintenanc e of the NA AQ S on c e atta inm e nt o c c ur s, and pr e sc ri be d r ate s o f p ro g re ss.
. . . T he se assumptions, control strateg ies, and mea sures a re de veloped a s nece ssary to meet the atta inm e nt o bje c tiv e s f

or the are a and the Ac t’ s r e qu ir e me nts ( e.g . RA CT) . T he se assumptions and measure s are key components of the SI P. I t is im portant to note that projec tions of the eff

ect of planned a ir pollution control measures c ontained in the SI P’s are not merely

assumed but ar e enforce d by regulations adopted as part of the SIP . T he re fo re , if

the c ontr ol m e a sure s a

re no t im ple me nte d s uf

fi c ie ntl y to r e su lt i n require d reduc tions, the St ate or local ag ency , or EPA, ca n take a ction to enforc e imp le me ntatio n o f t

he re gulatio ns . T his pr ov ide s a me ans of a c hie vin g , at le a st, in pa rt , th e g oa ls o f atta inm e nt a nd fu rt he r p ro g re ss r e qu ir e d in

the Ac t.
57 Fe d. Reg . 13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992) ( emphasis adde d).
T h e G e n e r a l P r e amb l e s e t s f o rthw h ati tc a l l s f

o ur “ f un d am e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s f

o r S IP s ” : S IP measure s must be quantifiable, e nforc eable , replica ble, and a ccounta

ble. Id . at 13567-13568. These pr inciples apply

to all SI Ps and control measur es. Id . at 13568. Of importanc e her e, theMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

17 Cal. Code Reg s. §§ 94507-94517. 10 13 Cal. Code Reg s. §§ 2281-2282. 11 13 Cal. Code Reg s. §§ 2250 et seq

. 12 Pag e 7 of 22 second pr inciple (e nforc eable measure s) means that the measure s are “duly adopted, a

nd specify clea r, unambiguous, and mea surable r equire ments.” Id . “A leg al means f or ensur ing c ompliance must also ex ist for a mea sure to be e nforc eable .” Id . The pra cticality of dete rmining c ompliance is a fac tor. “A r egulatory limitis not enforc eable if, for e x ample, it is impractical to dete rmine compliance with the published limi t.” Id . E PA f ur the r e xpla ins the c on c e pt o f e nf or c e a bil ity in the Gene ral Prea

mble:
In g ener al, for a

SI P regulation to be enfor cea ble, it must clearly

spell out which so ur c e s o r s ourc e ty

pe s are su bje c t to its re qu ir e me nts and wh at it s r e qu ir e me nts (work pr actice s, emission li mits, etc.) ar e. The regulation also needs to spec ify the tim e fr ame s w ith in whic h th e se re qu ir e me nts mus t be me t, a nd mus t de fi nit ive ly

state rec ordkee ping a

nd monitoring re quirements appr opriate to the ty pe of sour ces be ing re gulate d. Th e re c or dk e e pin gand mon ito ri ngre qu ir e me nts mus t be su ff ic ie nt t o allow deter

minations on a continuing ba sis whether sour ces a re c omplying. An enfor cea ble re gulation must also contain test procedur es in order to determine whether source s are in compliance.
Id . at 13502.
II. THE AIR RES OURCES BOARD HAS NOT SUBMITTE D AND THE EPAHAS NO T APPR O VE D W AI VE R M E AS UR E S FO R I NC L US I O N I N T H E S I P.
To date , E PA h a s n ot a

pp ro ve d s tate -a do pte d r e gulatio ns a s p art of the state implementation plan, with the lone exception of three alre ady -adopte d measure s submitt ed by ARB a long w ith the 1994 Ozone SI P and motor vehicle I nspection/Maintenanc e re gulations. The three control mea sures that California had adopte d and submitted with the 1994 Ozone SI P are ( 1) antiperspira

nt and deodor ant re gulations; (2) diese l fuel re gulations; and (3) ref ormulated 10 11 g asoline re gulations. 61 Fe d. Reg . 10920, 10925 (Mar ch 18, 1996); 62 F ed. Reg . 1150, 1159 12 (Jan. 8, 1997). EPA approve d the measur es as pa rt of the SI P. See60 Fe d. Reg . 43379 (Aug . 21, 1995). Duringthe 1994 Ozone SI P approval proc ess, EPA also appr oved re quiredMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

In 1 99 4 SI P c ur

re nc y , th e tot a l to nn a g e of tho se state me a sure s f

or the San Joa qu in V a lle y

is 13 15 tons per day

of VOC and 5 tons pe r day of NOx. 61 Fed. Reg . at 10945; 62 Fe d. Reg . at 1173. See74 Fe d. Reg . 33933, 33936 (Jul y 14, 2009); ARB Staff

Report at Ta

ble I I I -6. 14 Pag e 8 of 22 Ins pe c tio n/M a int e na

nc e re gulatio ns (“ I/M” or “ Smo gChe c k” ) t

hat th e state su

bmi tte d to EPAin 1995 and 1996. See61 Fe d. Reg . at 10931-10934; 62 F ed. Reg . at 1168. EPA has not appr oved any state adopte d reg

ulations since EPA approve d the 1994 Ozone SI P in 1997.
In th e 19 94 Ozo ne SI P, the ARB and De pa rtme nt o f P e sti c ide Re gulatio n c omm itt e d to adopt a host of state mobile source, c onsumer produc ts, and pesticide c ontrol measure s. See62 Fe d. Reg . 1160-1169. ARB c laims to have adopte d such mea sures, a s well as additional 13 measure s that ARB ha d not committed to adopting in the 1994 Ozone SI P. SeeState Strateg y at Table I -1. In J anuar

y 2008, the Depa

rtment of Pesticide Regulation adopted re gulations, pursuant to a fe dera l court orde r in El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. He lliker , No. 04-0882 (E.D. Cal.), a

nd submitt ed them to EPA but EPA has not approve d them as par t of the SI P. None of the state re gulatio ns lis te d in State Str ate g y

Ta ble I -1 , e xce pt t

he I/M r e gulatio ns a do pte d in 1995, have be en appr oved by EPA as a pa

rt of the State Implementation Plan.
As a re sult of AI R’s November 17, 2008 comments on the first propose d approva l of the 2004 SI P, EPA has require d ARB to submit “non-wa iver” measure s, or those ARB -adopte d rules for whic h ARB doe s not seek a w aiver under se ction 209 of the Ac t, 42 U.S.C. § 7543. See74 F e d. Re g . 3 39 33 , 3 39 39 (Jul y 14 , 2 00 9) . E PA t ake s th e po sit ion in t he pr op os e d r

ule that A RB need not submit any

rules adopte d to regulate on-r oad and non- road ve hicle or e ng ine standar ds for whic h ARB obtains a

waiver under se ction 209 of the Ac t – “waive r mea sures” – and that EPA may approve d the 2004 SI P without s uch mea sures be ing in the pla n or otherw ise submitted to E PA f or its re vie w a

nd a pp ro va l. Neither EPA’s proposed r

ule nor the Te chnica l Support Document (TSD) se t forth the amount of re ductions from “w avier measure s” used in the attainment demonstration, used in the rate of pr ogre ss d e mon str atio n, and us e d f or c ontin g e nc y

me a sure s. Ho we ve r, ba se d o n T a ble s 1 and 5 of the proposed r

ule, it appea

rs that “wa iver mea sures” acc ount for the va st majority of baseline me asure s, which ac cordingto ARB ac count for 79.3 tons pe r day of VOC and 97.2 tons per da y of Nox reductions in 2010. 14 Finally , the 2003 Fina l State Strateg y commits to adopting re gulations to achieve 20 tons per da y of NOx and 15 tons per da y of VOC re ductions by

2010. See73 F e d. Re g . at 61 38 5; S tateMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

ARB Staff

Report at 26. 15 ARB Staff

Report at 26. 16 Pag e 9 of 22 Str ate g y at I -2 4 thro ug h I -2 6; 2 00 4 SI P at 4- 55 . A RB c la ims to h ave c omp lie d w iththi s commitment, y et has not submitted any of the a dopted re gulations to EPA for inclusion in the SI P. This is particularly

problematic be cause only four months rema in in 2009. Sources unde r state c ontrol (not District control) a ccount f or 46% of the Valley ’s in ven to ry of o z on e formi ng emi ss io ns in 20 00

. Acco rdi ng to AR B, 15
ARB r egulations on the books as of 2002 ar e providing176 tpd of emission re du c tio ns – th e se inc lud e the L ow -E mis sio n V e hic le Pr ogra m and Ca lif or nia Reformulate d Gasoline, tog ether with a serie s of progressively tighter emission sta nd ard s f or ne w e ng ine s u se d in

bigdie se l tr

uc ks and he avy e qu ipm e nt, fo rk lif

ts and pumps, lawn a

nd g arde n equipment, pleasur e cr aft, a nd over 100 c ateg ories of c on sume r p ro du c ts. 16
No on-roa d or non-r oad re gulations adopted by ARB have bee n submitt ed to EPA, or a pp ro ve d b y

EPAa s a pa rt of the SI P. T his fu

nd ame nta l f

a ilure inf e c ts t he e nti re 20 04 SI P. E PA cannot a pprove the 2004 SI P when such a hug e compone nt of the control strateg y – waiver measure s – have not be en submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SI P. EPA has not even re viewed the rules to make a findingthat such rules a ctually produce the re ductions claimed.
III . THE 2 00 4 SI P ’S BA SELI NE IN VE NT OR Y I NC LU DE S RE DU CT ION S F RO M WA IV ER

M EA SURES THA T HA VE NO T BEEN SUB M ITTE D T O EP A, OR APPR O VE D B Y E PA, AS PAR T O F T H E S I P.
Be cause California uses r eductions fr om waiver measure s that occur

befor e 2000 as pa

rt of the 2000 base line inventory , EPA’s proposed a pproval of the inventory

violates sections 172(c )(3) and 182(a )(1) of the Ac t, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(3) and 7511a( a)( 1), bec ause EPA ha s failed to find that th e re du c tio ns fr om t he wa ive r m e a sure s h ave oc c ur re d, are e nf

or c e a ble , o r a re oth e rw ise consistent with the Act, EPA’s implementingregulations, and the Ge nera l Preamble.Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 10 of 22 IV . EP A A P P RO VA L OF THE C ON TIN G EN CYM EA SURES D EM ON STR AT ION IN THE 2004 S IP AND THE 2008 SIP CLARIF ICATION VIOLATE S TH E CLEAN AI R A CT BEC AU SE WA IV ER M EA SURES HA VE NO T BEEN AP P RO VE D B Y EP A A S A P AR T OF THE SI P AN D F LEET T UR NO VE R I S NO T EN F OR CE AB LE. As set forth a

bove in Section I .B, su

pra , sections 172(c )(9) and 182(c )(9) of the Ac t, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7502(c)(9) and 7511a( c), r equire conting ency measure s to be included in the SIP . Any measure s used as c ontinge ncy measure s must be enforc eable

. See42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2) (A). Th e 20 08 SI P Cla

ri fi c atio n atte mpt s to us e re du c tio ns fr om w a ive r m e a sure s and reduc tions from on-roa d flee t turnover in 2011 as year conting ency

measure s. 74 Fe d. Reg . at 33944. AI R ag ree s wi th E PA’ s p ro po sa l to dis a pp ro ve the atta inm e nt ye ar c ontin g e nc y me a sure s, but take s is su e wi th EPA allowingthe 2004 SI P to take cre dit for re ductions from wa iver mea sures a nd on-roa d flee t turnover. Waiver mea sures c annot oper ate a s conting ency measure s beca

use such mea sures a

re not in t he SI P and

have no t be e n s ub mitte d to EPAa s p art of the 20 04 Pla

n o r t he 20 03 F ina l State Strateg y . Moreove r, EPA ca nnot approve excess reduc tions from “flee t turnover” in 2011 as conting ency

measure s. There are no control mea sures – EPA-a pproved or

otherwise – that require flee t turnover. The reduc tions from fleet turnove r ar e nothingmore than a ssumptions based on vo luntary futur e a c tiv ity

that f a il t o me e t th e Ac t’ s r e qu ir e me nts fo r e nf or c e a ble me a sure s. Moreove r, EPA has made no finding– nor could it bec ause the re a re no f acts to support such a f inding – that the a ssumed reduc tions from fleet turnove r have oc curred . I t is arbitrary and capr icious for EPA to appr ove 2008 and 2010 ROP conting ency measure demonstrations, or provide c redit to the attainment year conting ency

demonstration, when E PA has made no f inding that such flee t turnover r eductions have actua lly occur red. EPA a ction on conting ency measure s wo uld the re fo re vio late the Ac t or be arb itr ary

and c a pr ic iou s. V. EP A A P P RO VA L OF THE A TTA IN M EN T D EM ON STR AT ION VI OLA TES TH E CL EA N A IR

AC T BEC AU SE THE DE M ON STR AT ION RE LIES ON WA IV ER M EA SURES THA T HA VE NO T BEEN SUB M ITTE D T O EP A, OR AP P RO VE D B Y E PA, AS PAR T O F T H E S I P. The propose d approva l of the 2004 SI P’s attainment demonstration violates the Ac t beca use wa iver mea sures have not bee n EPA approve d as par t of the SI P and have not be en submitt ed with these pla

n revisions. The total tonnag e attributed to these unsubmitt ed and nonSI P approved me asure s in the attainment demonstration ac counts for r oug hly 79.3 tons per day

ofMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

The attainment demonstration includes cr edit g iven to waiver measure s. See 74 Fe d. Reg . at 17 33943 Table 5. O f these c laimed re ductions, neither EPA nor the rule re visions identify the amount of re ductions purportedly achie ved by

waiver measure s. “The term ‘a

pplicable implementation plan’ means the por tion (or portions) of the 18 implementation plan, or most rec ent re vision thereof, which as be en appr oved under section 7410 of this titl e, or pr omulgated under section 7410(c ) of this title, or promulg ated or approve d pursuant to re gulations promulgated under section 7601(d) of this titl e and which implements the Pag e 11 of 22 VOC and 97.2 tons per

day of Nox in 2010. See74 Fe d. Reg . At 33936 Table 1; ARB Staff 17 Report at Ta

ble I I I -6. The A ct re quires that the c ontrol measure s used to attain the 1-hour ozone standard must be e nforc eable and comply with the require ments of the Ac t. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7410(a) (2)( A), 7502(c )(6) . These me asure s must be submit ted to EPA for EPA re view and approva l. See Section I , su pra . Be cause such mea sures a re not in the plan a

nd have not be en submitt ed as pa

rt of these revisions, EPA cannot a pprove the attainment demonstration.
VI . EP A A P P RO VA L OF THE R AT E OF P RO G RE SS D EM ON STR AT ION VI OLA TES TH E C LEA N A IR AC T BEC AU SE THE DE M ON STR AT ION RE LIES ON WA IV ER

M EA SURES THA T HA VE NO T BEEN SUB M ITTE D T O EP A, OR APPR O VE D B Y E PA, AS PAR T O F T H E S I P. Th e Rate of

Pr og re ss ( “ RO P” ) d e mon str atio n r e lie s o n r e du c tio ns fr om w a ive r m e a sure s, which have not been submitted to EPA for re view and a pproval a s a par

t of the SI P. SeeSections I Iand V, su

pra ; 74 F e d. Re g . at 33 94 2; 2 00 8 SI P Cla ri fi c atio n at 6

. EPA err oneously claims that the ROP demonstration “does not depe nd on reduc tions from . . . State waiver measure s or on reduc tions from any

measure s that are not cre ditable under the terms of se ction 182(b)( 1) [42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(1) ]

. ” 74 F ed. Reg . at 33942

. Footnote 20 of the proposed r

ule conc edes that the ROP demonstration relies on “ baseline me asure s” which the prosed r ule def ines to include waiver measure s. Id . at 33942 n.20, 33936
Th e Ac t r e qu ir e s th at st ate s ma y on ly take c re dit

fo r r e du c tio ns fr om SIP-approv ed me a sure s in

RO P.
Exc e pt a s p ro vid e d und e r s ub pa ra g ra ph(D ), e mis sio ns re du c tio ns are c re dit a ble toward the 15 perc ent re quired unde r subpar ag raph ( A) to the e x tent they have actua lly occur red, a s of 6 y ear s after

the date of

the ena ctment of the Clea n Air Ac t Amendments of 1990 [enac ted Nov. 15, 1990], from the implementation of mea sures require d under the applicable impleme ntation plan , rules promulg ated by the 18Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

rele vant re quirements of this cha pter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7602(q).

Pag e 12 of 22 Ad min istrator , o r a

tit le V p e rm it. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(1) (c) (empha sis added); se e als o 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(c) (2)( B)

. L ong standingEPA interpre tation of the Ac t’s ROP provisions onl y allow for r eductions fro m m easu res th at a re en for ceabl e parts of t he S I P . “C ompl ian ce wi th th e mi les to ne an d R FP require ments of the Ac t require s that all of the cr editable e mission reductions be appr oved as enfor cea ble par ts of the SI P.” 65 Fe d. Reg . 6091, 6098 (F eb. 8, 2000) citing 57 Fe d. Reg . at 13517; 65 Fed. Re g . 18903 (April 10, 2000) ( final rule)

. The propose d rule’s a

pproval of the ROP demonstration will vi olate the Ac t, which expressly require s ROP reductions to come fr om SI P-approve d measure s. EPA refuse s to compel the ARB to submit waiver measure s for re view and a pproval a s part of the SI P, so EPA’s un fl inc hin gre lia

nc e on su c h me a sure s f

or RO P vi ola

te s th e Ac t.
Moreove r, EPA’s dec ision to find that the 2004 SI P demonstrates ROP has no fac tual ba sis . T he Di str ic t’ s RF P de mon str atio n in the 20 04 SI P and

in t he 20 08 SI P Cla

ri fi c atio n f

a il t o distinguish betwee n reduc tions from SI P-approve d regulations and from wa iver mea sures. Re g ard le ss, g ive n th e signif ic ant a mou nt o f r e du c tio ns fr om w a ive r m e a sure s a nd EPA ’s fa ilure to conduct a n analy sis of waiver

measure s’ re ductions and find them cr editable, the ROP demonstration fa ils to demonstrate ROP, EPA approval of the ROP demonstration has no fac tual basis and is arbitra

ry and ca pricious.
VII. THE 2004 S IP AND THE ST ATE ST RATEGY F AIL TO DEMONST RATE AN ENF ORCEABLE PROG RAM. The 2004 SI P and the 2003 Fina l State Strateg y fail to demonstrate a monitoringprog ram fo r w a ive r m e a sure s. EPAre gulatio ns imp le me nti ngthe Ac t sp e c if ic a lly re qu ir e e a c h p lan to make this demonstration.
Eac h plan must set forth a c ontrol strategy which includes . . . Adescr iption of enfor ceme nt methods including, but not limit ed to: (1) Proc edure s for monitoring compliance with eac h of the sele cted c ontrol measure s; (2) Proce dures f or handling violations; and (3) A de signation of ag ency responsibility

for e nforc ement of implementation.Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 13 of 22 40 C.F.R. § 51.111. The plans lac k proce dures f or monitoring c ompliance “ with eac h of the sele cted c ontrol measure s.” Id . Be cause the plans do not provide monitoringfor wa iver mea sures, a nd EPA has not approve d eac h individual waiver me asure s’ monitoring pr ovisions, C alifornia a nd the District have not made the demonstrations re quired by 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.111. EPA’s proposed a pproval of the 20 04 SI P wi tho ut a

pp ro ve d mo nit or ingpr ov isi on s f or wa ive r m e a sure s v iol ate s th e Ac t.
VI II. SEC TIO N 1 93 OF THE A CT P RO VI DE S NO RE F UG E F OR EP A’ S DE CI SION T O E XC L UD E W AI VE R M E AS UR E S FRO M T H E S I P.
In response to AI R’s November 17, 2008 comments, EPA re- proposed its ac tion on the 20 04 SI P and

c re ate d a fi c tio n f or why EPAmay

a pp ro ve the 20 04 SI P wh e n A RB re fu se s to submit on-road and non- road c ontrol measure s (“wa iver mea sures” ). EPA re lies principally on section 193 of the A ct, and the a rgument that Congr ess somehow ratified EPA’s pra ctice of approvingCalifornia SI Ps that do not i nclude mea sures for which EPA has grante d waiver s under section 209 of the A ct. See74 F e d. Re g . 3 39 38 -3 39 39 . T he pla in l angua g e of the Ac t e xpre ssl y require s that California submit the control measur es, rules, a nd regulations used to meet the Ac t’s require ments as par

t of the State Implementation Plan. Moreover , nothing in Title I Iof the Ac t or section 209 provide a

ny basis for EPA’s position. Section 193 provides that for mal rules, notices, or

guidance documents promulg ated by the Ad min istrator

be fo re the e ff

e c tiv e date of

the 19 90 ame ndme nts sh a ll r e ma in i n e ff e c t exc ept when the A ct provides other wise or wh e n in c on sis te nt w iththe Ac t.
Eac h regulation, standard, r ule, notice, or der a

nd guidance promulg ated or issued by the Administrator under

this Act, as in eff

ect be fore the date of

the ena ctment of the Cle an A ir

Ac t A me ndme nts of

19 90 sh a ll r e ma in i n e ff

e c t a c c or din gto i ts terms, except to the extent otherwise provide d under this Act, inconsistent with any provision of this Act, or re vised by the Administrator. 42 U.S.C. § 7515.
In th e pr op os e d r

ule , E PA t ake s th e unte na ble po sit ion

that Co ngre ss m

us t e xpre ssl y disapprove of

EPA’s claimed long -standinginterpre tation or Congr essional silence equate s to aMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

EPA fails to cite to any

such interpr etations, rules, guidance documents, or a ny other sourc e 19 for this claimed long -standinginterpre tation. Pag e 14 of 22 ratifica tion of EPA’s interpre tation. 74 Fe d. Reg . At 33939. Be cause the Act itself r equire s that 19 control mea sures used f

or attainment, rate of progress, c ontinge ncy measure s, or any

other require ment must be approve d by EPA as a pa

rt of the SI P, see Section I , su pra , section 193 does not permit EPA to allow waiver measure s to remain outside of the SI P.
IX. THE PROP OSE D AP P ROVAL VIOLATES THE ACT B ECAUSE EPA HAS F AI LED TO REQU IRE TR AN SP OR TA TIO N C ON TR OL M EA SURES. EPA fails to require that the 2004 SI P include Transpor tation Control Measures, whic h are enfor cea ble measur es to reduc e pollution from the Valley ’s transpor tation sy stem. 42 U.S.C. § 75 11 a (d )( 1) (A ). Th e pla in l angua g e and le g isl ativ e his tor

y of the Ac t, a s w e ll a s th e de lib e rate str uc tur e of the Ac t, d e mon str ate that T ra ns po rt atio n Co ntr ol M e a sure s a re re qu ir e d whe n v e hic le miles traveled inc rea se in a re g ion.
Am on gthe a dd iti on a l pr ov isi on s a pp lic a ble to a n e xtre me ozo ne no natta inm e nt a re a is section 182(d) (1)( A), whic h decla res that e ach state in which a se vere or extreme ar ea is located “shall ... submit a revision that identifies and a dopts specific e nforc eable transportation control str ate g ie s and

tr ans po rt atio n c ontr ol m e a sure s to of fs e t any g ro wth in

e mis sio ns fr om gro wth in vehicle miles tra

veled or numbers of ve hicle trips in such ar ea ...” 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(d)(1) (A). State d mo re sim

ply , a se ve re or e xtre me no natta inm e nt a re a fo r o zon e mus t a do pt e nf or c e a ble tr ans po rt atio n c ontr ol m e a sure s th at of fs e t th e a dd iti on a l e mis sio ns re su lti ngfr om a n in c re a se in vehicle miles tra

veled. The House Commi ttee Report that a ccompa nied adoption of sec tion 182 during the 1990 Clean Air Ac t Amendments explains how to calculate e missions incre ases attributed to VMT, statin g : “ Th e ba se lin e fo r d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t he re ha s b e e n gro wth in

e mis sio ns du e to incre ased V MT is the level of ve hicle emissions that would occur if VMT held c onstant in the are a.” 2 S. Comm. on Environment & Public Works, 103rd Cong ., A L eg islative History of the Clean Air Ac t Amendments of 1990 (Comm. Print 1993) at 3266 (H.R. Rep. No. 101-490 (1990))

. There is no dispute that VMT has incre ased w ithin the San J oaquin Valley Air B asin and that vehicle e missions are highe r than they would be if VMT he ld constant in the are a. EPA’s failure to require transportation control measure s violates the Act.Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 15 of 22 X. THE COMMITMENT TO ACHIEVE 20 TONS P ER DAY OF NOx AND 15 TONS P ER DA Y O F VO C RED UC TIO NS I N T HE 2 00 3 STA TE STR AT EGY I S NO T EN F OR CE AB LE. The 2003 F inal State Strateg y includes a c ommitm ent to achie ve in the ag g reg ate a tonna g e re du c tio n b y

the atta inm e nt ye ar, 74 F e d. Re g . at 33 93 8, wh ic h r e nd e rs the c omm itm e nts unenfor cea

ble as a prac tical matter. The 2003 F inal State Strateg y includes “c ommitm ents” that a re une nforc eable . All of the “commitments” include pr omises by ARB staf

f to bringan identified me asure to the ARB. See , e.g. , State Strateg y

at I I -A-13, 15, 16; State Strate g y at I I -B -15, 23. Ther e is no commitment by the B oa rd its e lf to a do pt a

pa rt ic ula r s tr ate g y to a c hie ve sp e c if

ic re du c tio ns by

a sp e c if ic imp le me ntatio n d ate . T he a c t of pr op os inga

str ate g y to t he B oa rd is n ot a c omm itm e nt t o a do pt a strategy . EPA rec og nizes thi s fundamenta l defe ct. 74 Fe d. Reg . at 33938. EPA proposes to appr ove a “ g lobal” commitment by ARB to adopt unidentifie d new me a sure s, by

20 08 to a c hie ve g lob a l r e du c tio ns to b e imp le me nte d b y 20 10 in t he San Joa qu in Valley

. See , e.g. , State Strateg y at I I -A-13, 15, 16; State Strate g y at I I -B -15, 23. Enfor ceme nt of this ty pe of c ommitm ent is ext reme ly difficult g iven the open- ended c ommitm ent to adopt unspecifie d strateg ies. Citiz ens ca n’t enfor ce va gue contr ol measure s that do not commit t he ARB to a do pt a

ny pa rt ic ula r r e gulatio ns by

20 08 . Ci tize ns are le ft

wi th e nf or c ingthe “ g lob a l” tonnag e amounts af

ter 2008.
Suc h g lob a l to nn a g e “ c omm itm e nts ” c ou ld b e int e rp re te d a s “ g oa ls” by the Ni nth Cir c uit , and under Ninth Circuit prece dent, citizens cannot enf orce a SI P’s “g oals.” See Ba y v ie w H un te rs Point Community Advocate s v. Me tropolit ain Transpor tation Commission , 366 F.3d 692 ( 9th Cir. 2004). Even if c itiz ens could e nforc e these vague g lobal commitments, enforc ement is very difficult: when no mea sures a re submitted to EPA for inclusion in the SI P, citiz ens have no idea which mea sures ARB uses to satisfy the total tonnag e commitments. ARB ha s in no instance disclosed which mea sures that it has adopte d to achieve this commit ment nor submitted any regulations to EPA to demonst rate that it has complied with the total tonnag e commitment. In the situation where a

state commits to adopt measure s, and adopts such me asure s befor e EPA ac tion on the plan that included the commitments, EPA shoul d not allow the state to re ceive cre dit from such commitments toward a ny require ment without reviewingwhether the adopted me asure s the mse lve s are e nf

or c e a ble and oth e rw ise c omp ly

wi th t he Ac t. A

pp ro vin gthe pla

n w iththi s
“ c omm itm e nt” wo uld

thu s b e arb itr ary

and c a pr ic iou s.Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

SeeL etter f

rom David How ekamp to James Wells , dated Septembe r 16, 1994, attac hed as 20 Ex h. 5; L etter f

rom David How ekamp to James Wells , dated Ma rch 20, 1995, attached a s Ex h. 6; L etter f rom David How ekamp to James Wells , dated Apr il 21, 1995, attached a s Ex h. 7. Pag e 16 of 22 EPA has re

jected the kind of flexibil ity that ARB se eks now to adopt mea sures to ac hieve a g g re g ate tonna g e s. Duri ngthe 19 94 Ozo ne SI P a pp ro va l pr oc e ss, Ca lif

or nia re qu e ste d th at E PA g ive it flexi bility

to adjust the commitments in t he SI P without s ubmitti ngchang es to EPA for a pp ro va l. E PA r e

je c te d th at r e qu e st: The California

Environmental Protec tion Age ncy (CEPA) commented that, as EPA rec og nized in the proposed appr oval, some of Califor nia’s spec ific strate g ies may re qu ir e a dju stm e nt a s a c tua l r ule s a re de ve lop e d. CEP A s tate d th at “ we wi ll reta in the flexibi lity

to revise the SI P as long a s the emission reductions continue to provide for

attainment.” As stated in the NPRM, EPA supports the State’s flexibi lity to revise the SI P, but cautions that EPA must review SI P revisions for appr oveability under Sec tions 110(l) and 193.
62 F e d. Re g . at 11 58 ; se e als o 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l).
XI . THE P ESTI CI DE STR AT EGY M UST BE EN F OR CE AB LE. The propose d approva l of the 2004 SI P states that the plan does not re ly on reduc tions fr om C a lif

or nia ’s pe sti c ide str ate g y

to d e mon str ate atta inm e nt. 74 F e d. Re g . 3 39 36 . N e ve rt he le ss i n2 0 0 4 , th e A R B s u

b m i t t e d a p r o p o s e d s tr at e g y o np e s t i c i d e s a s p arto f th e 2 0 0 3 S t at e S tr at e g y, and that strate g y

applies to the San Joaquin Valley . In ear ly 2008, ARB submitted regulations purportingto control pesticide VO C to EPA for approva l under a fede ral c ourt order . EPA has not proposed ac tion on the pesticide re gulation.
C al i fo rn i a s u

b m i t t edth e P es t i ci d e E l em en t , a p arto f t h e 1 9 9 4 Oz o n e S I P , t o co n tro l s m o gformingVOC emissions from pesticides. The Pesticide Element as submitted in 1994 did not satisfy EPA, so EPA requeste d a more definitive promise. 20
On May 9, 19 95 , D e pa

rtme nt o f P e sti c ide Re gulatio n ( “ DPR ” ) D ir e c tor Jame s We lls complied, and wr ote a memor andum to California Air Re source s Boa rd (“ ARB” ) Executive Offic er James Boyd (the “ Wells Memorandum”).Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 17 of 22 Th e De pa rtme nt o f P e sti c ide Re gulatio n c omm its to a do pt a nd su bmi t to U. S. EPAby June 15 , 1 99 7, any

re gulatio ns ne c e ssa

ry to r e du c e vo latil e or g anic compound emissions from agricultural a nd commerc ial structura l pesticides by sp e c if ic pe rc e nta g e s o f t

he 19 90 ba se y e ar e mis sio ns , b y sp e c if ic y e ars , a nd in specific nonattainment ar eas ( descr ibed in 40 C.F.R. 81.305), as listed in the followingtable:
Re duc ti ons fro m 19 90 Bas e line

Ozone Nonattainm ent Ar ea 1996 1999 2002 2005 Sacra mento Metro 8% 12% 16% 20% San J oaquin Valley 8% 12% 16% 20% South C oast 8% 12% 16% 20% Southeast Deser

t 8% 12% 16% 20% Ventura 8% 12% 16% 20% Wells Memorandum, attache d as Exh. 8. ARB submitt ed the Wells Memorandum to EPA, ca lling the memora

ndum “a c larifica

tion” of what was “in the SI P.” Wit h this enforc eable promise in hand, EPA propose d approva l of the 1994 Ozone SI P. 61 F e d. Re g . 1 09 20 (M arc h 1 8, 19 96 ) ( “ Pr op os e d Ru le ” ). EPAde sc ri be d th e Wel ls Memorandum a s a “c larifica tion” of the “ technica l details of the pesticide commitment.” 61 Fe d. Reg . at 10935. EPA stated that the “ clar ification is considere d part of the SI P.” Id . E PA ref ere nced the Wells Memorandum and the ARB letter in a f ootnote. Id

. On June 13 , 1 99 6, ARB se nt a no the r l e tte r t o E PA R e g ion IX A ir Di vis ion Di re c tor Da vid Howeka mp (the “H oweka

mp L etter” ) askingfor va rious corr ections to the Proposed Rule. Ho we kamp L e tte r, atta c he d a s E xh. 9 . T he Ho we kamp L e tte r r e qu e ste d th at E PA d e le te the ta ble “Reduc tions from 1990 Pesticide Emissions Baselines,” stated that the pe sticide “ c om mi tm e nt i s for a 20% reduction from 1990 leve ls by 2005 in each SI P area, ex cept [San Die

go] ,” and stated “we only took cre dit in the attainment y ear : SJ V 1999 = 12% , Sac 2005 = 20% , Ven 2005 = 20%, SED 2007 = 20%, SC 2010 = 20%.” Id . at A-2 ( emphasis adde d).
In the Fina l Rule, EPA reaf firmed its intent to approve a n enfor cea

ble Pesticide Element. 62 F e d. Re g . 1 15 0, 11 69 -1 17 0 ( Jan. 8, 19 97 ) ( “ F ina l Ru le ” ). In th e F ina l Ru le , E PA r e sp on de d toMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 18 of 22 a comment f

rom the Environmenta l Defe nse Center (“ED C”) that questioned whether the “pesticide measure should be g rante d cre dit” beca use the propose d rule re fer red to a J une 1997 deadline to a dopt regulations while “the SI P its elf re cites a po ssi ble , n ot o bli ga tor y , 1998 date.” Id . at 11 69 (e mph a sis a dd e d) ; see also ED C Co mme nt L e tte r at 4, atta c he d a s E xh. 6 . E PA responde d to the comment by quoting the Wells Memora ndum – including its J une 15, 1997 deadline – a

nd callingit a “SI P clarification.” 62 Fe d. Reg . at 1170. EPA then appr oved the “pesticide measure .” Id. The Wells memorandum is the only document which inc luded the June 15, 1997 obligatory

date by which DPR would adopt any regulations nece ssary

to achieve the spec ified re du c tio ns
. Se ve ra l of

the g ro up s c omm e nti nghe re su c c e ssf ull y e nf or c e d th e Wel ls M e mor and um i n U.S. District Court. See El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. He lliker , 416 F.Supp.2d 912 (E.D. Cal. 2006). O n August 20, 2008, the Ninth Circuit held that the California SI P does not include the “ Wells Memorandum.” El Comité para el Bienestar de Earlimart v. W armerdam , 539 F .3 d 1 06 2, 10 69 -1 07 2. Th e Ni nth Cir c uit state d:
B e c a us e we c on c lud e that th e sc he du le and int e ri m st and ard s o f t

he Wel ls Memorandum a

re not pa rt of the SI P, California would not have be en in violation of the SI P even if it had made no decision about the ne ed for further regulations.
Id . at 1069.
Th e Ni nth

Cir c uit ’s int e rp re tatio n is dif fe re nt t ha n th at w hic h E PA d isc los e d to the pu bli c in its 1997 approval, when it re sponded to the EDC comment. This interpr etation is also differ ent than what EPA said in a r ece nt 2008 rulemaking

. The EPA’s pr oposed and f inal rules appr oving the Ventura Pesticide SI P revision rearticulates the Pesticide Commitm ent. See 73 Fe d. Reg . 21885, 21886 (Apr. 23, 2008) ; 73 Fed. Reg . 41277, 41281 (Jul y

18, 2008). EPA states that the c ommitm ent is to adopt any rules ne c e ssa ry by June 15 , 1 99 7 to a c hie ve a pe rc e nta g e re du c tio n in

20 05 and a tonna g e re du c tio n in the attainment year . 73 Fe d. Reg . at 41281 (“ our interpr etation of the or igina l Pesticide Element commitment as havingboth a tonnag e re duction commitment in addition t o the per cent r eduction commitment”). EPA then desc ribes the c ommitm ent as includingthat J une 15, 1997 date to adopt “any regulations nece ssary .” Id

. Under the orig inal Pesticide Element, for the Ventur a County

nonattainment ar ea (V e ntu ra ), the Ca lif

or nia De pa rtme nt o f P e sti c ide Re gulatio n ( DPR) c omm itt e d toMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 19 of 22 adopt and submit to EPA by J une 15, 1997, any

regulations nece ssary

to reduc e VOC emissions from ag ricultural a nd structura l pesticides by 20 perc ent of the 1990 base year

emissions by

2005. Id . at 41277. EPA also explained what makes the pesticide strateg y enfor cea ble. Commenters and EPA both agree that the State’s SI P commitm ent (fr om the 1994 Ozo ne SI P) wi th r e sp e c t to VO C e mis sio ns re du c tio ns fr om u se of pe sti c ide s in Ve ntu ra County is d e fi ne d in

te rm s o f p e rc e nt r e du c tio n f ro m ba se y e ar e mis sio ns
. The point of disag ree ment is that EPA states in the proposed rule that the commitment is a two-fold commitment defined in ter ms of both a per cent reduc tion and a tonnag e re duction. Our interpr etation of the or igina l Pesticide Element commitment as havingboth a tonnag e re duction commitment in addition t o the per cent r eduction commitment rests on g ener al and spe cific grounds. Fir st, EPA has traditionally found committal measures, suc h as the c ommitm ent to reduc e VOC e missions in the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SI P, to be enforc eable , and thus approve able, only

if such mea sures identify the re sponsible party , adoption dates for r ules, implementation dates, and e missions reduc tions in t erms of e missions rate s (such a s tons per day ) equa l to the cre dit taken in the RFP or attainment plan for the c ommitt al measur e. The tonnag e spec ification provides the essential link betwee n the committal measure and the RF P or attainment demonstration. Seethe g ener al discussion of committal measure s in EPA’s final rule a pprovingthe 1994 Ozo ne SI P at 62 F R 11 50 (Janu ary 8, 19 97 ), at 11 55 –1 15 7, and the sp e c if

ic discussion of the committal measure s submitt ed as pa rt of the 1994 Ozone SI P at 1157, column 3. In this case, the tonna g e commitment (for 2005) links the orig inal Pesticide Element commitment to the approve d attainment demonstration for Ve ntura County . Eac h specific element of a committal measure , once the measure is approved by

EPA, is considered to be enfor cea ble. Thus, we be lieve that EPA would not have found the orig inal Pesticide Element commitment for Ventura approve able unless the me asure included the 2.37 tons per day reduc tion in pesticide VOC emissions in 2005 that was cr edited to the mea sure in the 1994 Ozo ne SI P. Id . at 41281.Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

See2003 State Strateg y

at I I I -C-3. 21 The languag e of this commitment in the 2003 Final State Strategy trac ks verbatim the 22 langua g e in t

he Wel ls M e mor and

um. Seeletter fr om Aleg ría De L a Cruz to Mary -Ann Warmer dam, et al ., dated August 18, 2009, 23 attache d as Exh. 10. Pag e 20 of 22 The 2003 State Strategy

includes a “ Proposed Strategy to I mplement the Exi sting Pesticide Str ate g y .” Th e str ate g y

state s: 21
As de sc ri be d in

the 19 94 SI P and

U. S. E PA’ s n oti c e a

pp ro vin gthat pl an, DPR c omm itt e d to re du c e VO C e mis sio ns fr om p e sti c ide s thro ugh v olu nta ry me a sure s, wi th a re gulator y ba c ks top . Sp e c if

ic a lly , D PR c omm itt e d to a do pt a nd su bmi t to U.S. EPA by

J une 15, 1997, any

regulations nece ssary

to reduc e VOC e missions from agricultural a

nd commerc ial structura l pesticides by specific perc entag es of the 1990 base year

emissions, by

specific y ear s, and in specif ic nonattainment ar eas. F or the South Coast, the commitm ent is to reduce VOC emissions from pesticides to a level 20 per cent be low 1990 base year emissions by

the attainment year
. Id

. Gi ve n th e Ni nth

Cir c uit ’s int e rp re tatio n, EPAsh ou ld d isa pp ro ve the “ Pr op os e d Stra te g y to 22 Impl e me nt t

he Exist ingPe sti c ide Str ate g y” in t he 20 03 State Str ate g y

be c a us e the c omm itm e nt t o adopt re gulations is, as interprete d by the Ninth Circuit, discretionar y . Severa l gr oups believe that the Ho we kamp L e tte r i s e nf or c e a ble , a nd have se nt a

60 -d ay no tic e of int e nt t o s ue to C a lif

or nia state of fi c ia ls f or the ir fa ilure to c omp ly

wi th t he Ho we kamp L e tte r a

nd the Pe sti c ide El e me nt. 23
XII. EPASHOUL D NOT GR ANT CREDIT F OR REDUCTIONS FR OM DISTRICT RU LE 4 57 0 TO WA RD S AT TA IN M EN T A ND RA TE OF P RO G RE SS. This proposal see ks to allow the District to take c redit for reduc tions from the Rule 4570, y et EPA has propose d to disapprove the r ule bec ause the District has fa iled to demonstrate that the Rule is RACT. 74 Fed. Reg . at 33949. For the re asons set for

th in the comment letters date d August 31, 2009 submit ted by the Center on Ra ce, Pover ty & the Environment and Ea rthjustice, EPA should not allow credit fr om Rule 4570 in the 2004 SI P.Ms. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 21 of 22 XI II. EP A SH OU LD NO T G RA NT CRED IT F OR RE DU CT ION S F RO M THE REF ORMULATED GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL RULE TOWARDS AT TA IN M EN T A ND RA TE OF P RO G RE SS. This proposal see ks to allow the District to take c redit for reduc tions from ARB’s re fo rm ulate d g a so lin e and

die se l f ue l r ule . F or the re a so ns se t f

or th i n th e c omm e nt l e tte r t o Jef fr e y B us s f ro m th e Ce nte r o n Ra c e , Po ve rt y & the Envir onme nt, date d Augus t 31 , 2 00 9, EPA sh ou ld n ot a llo w c re dit

fr om t he fu e l r ule in t he 20 04 SI P.
XI V. CO NC LU SION
For the re asons set for

th above, AI R respec tfully reque sts that EPA disapprove the 2004 SI P, the 2008 SI P Cl arific ation, and the 2003 F inal State Strateg y . Thank you for your time, consideration, and eff

ort.

S i n c e r e l y,

B re nt N e we ll, L e g a l D ir e c tor Sa l Pa rt ida , Co -C ha ir Ce nte r o n Ra c e , Po ve rt

y & the Envir onme nt Committe e fo r a B e tte r Arv in

Tom Fra ntz, P resident Adriano Ma rtinez, Attorney As so c iatio n o f I

rr itate d Re sid e nts Natur a l Re so ur c e s D e fe ns e Counc il

Gar y Rodrigue z J esus J aime, President South S ha ft e r P ro

je c t Co mmi tte e Sha ft e r C ha pte r L e a gue of

Un ite d L atin Americ an Citezens LULACMs. Fra

nces Wicher C o m m en t s o nAp p ro v al o f 2 0 0 4 S I P , 2 0 0 8 S I P C l ar i fi ca t i o n , an d th e 2 0 0 3 Fi n al S t at e S tra t egy August 31, 2009

Pag e 22 of 22 Renee Nelson, President Fr ancisc o Martines Clean Water a

nd Air Matter Comit é Unido de Plainview

Gu a da lup e Nuñe z Irm a Me de lli n L a Voz de Tony

ville El Quinto Sol de Amer ica

Saul Morales Lucy Her nandez L a Nue va Esper anza de Alpa ug h Comit é West Goshen

Eunice Ma

rtinez L isa Kay ser- Gra nt United for a

Chang e in Tooleville Moms Cl ean A ir Networ k

Maria Cova

rruvias, Sec reta

ry Trea surer Comit é Residentes O rg anizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano