Technical Support Document

for the

Final Rulemaking Action

on the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 

2007 State Strategy

Air Division

U.S. EPA Region 9

December 2011
EPA- Region 9 Page 2

For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Wienke Tax

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

(415) 947-4192

tax.wienke@epa.gov

Documents referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for 

this rulemaking, docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0622, which may be found at 

www.regulations.gov or at the address listed above.
i

Technical Support Document for the Final Action on 

South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and the South Coast Portions of the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background

A. The 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

1. The 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

a. Level and Form of the Standard

b. Health Effects 

c. Revisions to the 8-Hour Ozone Standards

2. Implementing the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

a. Designations

b. California‘s Request for Reclassification of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area

c. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Planning Requirements

B. Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast

C. California‘s Submittals Constituting the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Standard Attainment 

State Implementation Plan

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness Determinations on SIP 

Submittals

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

II. Evaluation of the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP for 8-Hour Ozone and revised 

2007 State Strategy

3. September 2011 Proposed Action on Emissions Inventories

4. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on Emissions Inventories

B. Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling

2. Overview of the Conceptual Description, Modeling Approach, and Modeling Protocol 

in the South Coast 2007 AQMP
ii

3. Air Quality Model Selection

4. Episode Selection

5. Domain Size and Spatial Resolution

6. Initial and Boundary Conditions

7. Meteorological Model

8. Air Quality Model Performance

9. Modeled Attainment Test for Ozone

10. Weight of Evidence

11. September 2011 Proposed Finding on Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses

12. Evaluation, Conclusion and Final Action on the Air Quality Modeling and Other 

Analyses 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measure Demonstration and Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM

2. RACM Analysis in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

a. District‘s RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy

b. Local Jurisdiction RACM Demonstration 

c. CARB RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy

d. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved Technology Provision

3. Control Strategy in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy

5. Evaluation, Conclusion and Final Action on the RACM Demonstration and Control 

Strategy

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations

2. Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

3. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration

4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration

5. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the Attainment Demonstrations

E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

3. September 2011 Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration

4. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the RFP Demonstration

F. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions 

Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 

Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to 

Provide for RFP and Attainment
iii

2. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset 

Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and 

Attainment in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

3. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles 

Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment

4. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles 

Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment

G. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

3. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures

4. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the Contingency Measures

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

3. May 6, 2008 Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Budgets Submitted in 2011

5. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the Revised 2011 Budgets

I. Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program

3. New Source Review Rule

4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

7. Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers

8. CAA Section 185 Fee Program

III. Response to Comments

A. Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Enforceable Commitments

2. Baseline Measures, Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration

B. Pre-Baseline Emission Reduction Credits

C. Rule Effectiveness in District Rules

D. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provisions

E. CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Requirements
iv

F. Comments on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

G. General Comments

Appendix A – CARB Rules and Measures

A. Complete List of State Measures

B. State Rules That Do Not Address Ozone Precursors in the South Coast

C. State Fuel Measures

D. State On-Road Mobile Source Measures

E. State Consumer Product Measures

F. State Vapor Recovery Measures

G. Other State Measures

Appendix B –South Coast District Rules
v

Acronyms & Terms

AB: California Assembly Bill

ACT: Alternative Control Technique

AERR: Air Emissions Report Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A

AQIP: Air Quality Improvement Program

AQMD: air quality management district

AQMP: air quality management plan

AQS: Air Quality Subsystem

ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB)

ATPZEV: Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle

BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repair

BARCT: best available retrofit control technology

CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990

CALMET: a diagnostic 3- dimensional meteorological model

CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions

CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB)

CCR: California Code of Regulations

CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inventory System

CEIDARS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System

CERR: Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CO: carbon monoxide

CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines

CSBA: California Small Business Alliance

District: South Coast Air Quality Management District

DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

FDDA: Four Dimensional Data Assimilation

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration

Fine particulate matter: PM2.5

FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program

FR: Federal Register

FTA: Federal Transit Administration

GHG: greenhouse gas

ICE : internal combustion engine

km: kilometer

m: meter

MATES: Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study

MM5: Mesoscale model

MOA: Memorandum of Agreement

MPO: metropolitan planning organization

MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget

NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard

NATTS: National Air Toxics Trends Station

NCEP: National Centers for Environmental Prediction

NH3: ammonia
vi

NO2: nitrogen dioxide

NOx: oxides of nitrogen

NYQ: not yet quantified

O3: ozone

OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality

PBL: planetary boundary layer

PM: particulate matter

PM10: particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM2.5

PM2.5: particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less

PZEV: partial zero emissions vehicle

RACM: reasonably available control measures

RACT: reasonably available control technology

RAMS: Regional Atmospheric Modeling System

RECLAIM: Regional Clean Air Incentives Market

RFP: reasonable further progress

ROG: reactive organic gases, used interchangeably with ―VOC‖

RRF: relative response factor

RTIP: regional transportation improvement program

RTP: regional transportation plan

SAPRC99: Statewide Air Pollution Research Center-99

SC: South Coast

SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCE: Southern California Edison

SCR: selective catalytic reduction

SNCR: selective non-catalytic reduction

SCOS97: Southern California Ozone Study 1997

SIP: state implementation plan

SJV: San Joaquin Valley

SJVAPCD: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

SO2: sulfur dioxide

SOx: oxides of sulfur

STMPRAG: Scientific, Technical, and Modeling Peer Review Advisory Group 

TCM: transportation control measures

TCS: transportation control strategies

tpd: tons per day

TSD: technical support document

UTM: Universal transverse Mercator

VMT: vehicle miles traveled

VOC: volatile organic compounds

WOE: weight of evidence

WRAP: Western Regional Air Partnership 

WRF: Weather Research and Forecasting

WSPA: Western States Petroleum Association

ZEV: zero emissions vehicle
EPA- Region 9 Page 1

Technical Support Document

for the Final Rulemaking Action on the

South Coast 2007 AQMP for 8-hour Ozone and the South 

Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA‘s final rulemaking 

actions on the South Coast Air Quality Management District‘s 2007 AQMP (adopted June 1, 

2007 and revised March 4, 2011) and the related portions of the California Air Resources 

Board‘s State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (adopted with 

amendments on September 27, 2007, revised and updated on April 24, 2009 and July 21, 2011) 

that address attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. It describes the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for 8-hour ozone

attainment plans and EPA‘s regulations and policies interpreting these requirements. It also 

describes the elements of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised and 

supplemented, that address these requirements, and EPA‘s evaluation of whether the State‘s

submittals meet these requirements. 

A. The 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

1. The 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

a. Level and Form of the Standards

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for ozone to replace the then-current 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) with an 8-hour ozone standard set at a stricter level of 0.08 ppm.

1,2

(62 FR 

38856). The 8-hour standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three 

year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is 

less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.

3

40 CFR § 50.10(b)

Ground level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two 

pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, 

 

1

 EPA promulgated the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm in 1979. 44 FR 8202 (February 9, 1979). The 1-hour 

standards were met when the number of expected days per year on which the level of the standard was exceeded was 

less than or equal to 1.0 when averaged over 3 years. We revoked the 1-hour ozone standards effective June 15, 

2005. 40 CFR § 50.9(b), 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

2

In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering the 

level to 0.075 ppm. The form of the standards remained unchanged. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

3 The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding convention for comparing the 

computed 3-year average annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration to the level of the 

standard. The level of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is expressed to the second decimal place, 0.08 ppm. The third 

decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a 

computed 3-year average 8-hour ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 

ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, section 2.3.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 2

including on-road and off-road motor vehicles and engines (e.g., cars, trucks, construction 

equipment and locomotives) power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources (e.g., 

paints, lawn and garden equipment, and open burning).

 

b. Health Effects 

Ozone is a significant health concern, particularly for children and people with asthma 

and other respiratory diseases. Ozone has been associated with increased hospitalizations and 

emergency room visits for respiratory causes, school absences, and reduced activity and 

productivity because people are suffering from ozone-related respiratory symptoms.

Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure 

to ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone 

can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and 

aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased 

susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency department 

visits and hospital admissions for individuals with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases 

the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease. Children are at increased risk from 

exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their exposure. 62 FR 33856, 33589.

More detailed information on the health effects of ozone as well as information on the 

welfare effects of ozone can be found at the following web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html.

2. Implementing the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

a. Designations

The process for designating areas either attaining or not attaining following promulgation 

of a new or revised NAAQS is found in CAA section 107(d). Under this section, each state 

Governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations to EPA, 

including the appropriate boundaries for areas. Under CAA section 107, state and tribal 

recommendations are due within one year of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, and 

EPA has one to two additional years to promulgate final designations. By no later than 120 days 

prior to promulgating designations, EPA is required to notify states or tribes of any intended 

modifications to their recommended areas and boundaries. States and tribes then have an 

opportunity to provide a demonstration as to why the modifications indicated by EPA are

inappropriate. CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). Whether or not a state or tribe provides a 

recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems appropriate.

For the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21) revised the deadline to promulgate nonattainment designations to provide an 

additional year (to July 2000) and additional Congressional action restricted EPA‘s authority to 

spend money to designate areas until the earlier of June 2001 or the date of the Supreme Court 

ruling on the litigation challenging the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 3

In June 2000, we asked each state and tribal Governor or tribal leader to submit their 

designation recommendations (including boundary recommendations) and supporting 

documentation to EPA. Because of uncertainties due to ongoing litigation on the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards, we did not notify States and Tribes of any intended modifications and did not 

designate areas at that time. After the legal challenges to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS were 

resolved in 2001, we requested that States and Tribes provide updated recommendations based 

on ambient air quality data for the years 2000 to 2002 and any additional supporting 

documentation by July 15, 2003. 

On June 15, 2003, California submitted its recommendations, including the 

recommendation that the South Coast air basin be designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standards.

4 On September 8, 2003, EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) 

announcing the availability of the State and Tribal recommendations. See 68 FR 52933. 

On December 3, 2003, we notified California via letter of our intent to accept its 

recommendations for designating the South Coast air basin as nonattainment. On December 10, 

2003, we published a NOA announcing the availability of our letters. See 68 FR 68805. States

were asked to submit by no later than February 6, 2004 a demonstration as to why our 

modifications were not appropriate.

On April 15, 2004, we designated the South Coast air basin as nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and classified the area as ―severe-17‖ under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 

40 CFR § 51.903(a), Table 1.5See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). The designation, which 

became effective on June 15, 2004, is codified at 40 CFR § 81.305.

The designation of an area as nonattainment for any NAAQS starts the process whereby a 

state or tribe (or EPA, in lieu of a tribe, where necessary) develops an implementation plan that 

includes, among other things, a demonstration showing how the area will attain the NAAQS by 

the attainment dates prescribed in the CAA. Under CAA section 182 for ozone nonattainment 

areas and EPA‘s regulations implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

X), states had until June 15, 2007—three years after final designations to nonattainment—to 

submit to EPA their SIPs demonstrating RFP and attainment.640 CFR §§ 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 

51.908(a).

 

4

 See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, CARB, to Jack Broadbent, EPA-Region 9, June 15, 2003.

5

 See Letter, Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator, EPA, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, April 15, 2004.

6 The SIP submittals for meeting the requirements in CAA section 182(a)(1) for emissions inventories and CAA 

section 182(b)(2) for the implementation of reasonably available control technologies (RACT) were due 27 months 

after the effective date of designation. 40 CFR §§ 51.915 and 51.912(a)(2), respectively.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 4

b. California’s Request for Reclassification of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area

As part of California‘s submittal for the South Coast 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area, the State requested a reclassification of the South Coast from ―severe-17‖ to ―extreme‖

under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA.7

Section 181(b)(3) states: ―The Administrator shall grant the request of any State to 

reclassify a nonattainment area in that State in accordance with Table 1 of subsection (a) of this 

section to a higher classification. The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register

of any such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request.‖ This provision for 

voluntary reclassification has been brought forward as part of the transition from the 1-hour 

ozone standards to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. See 40 CFR 51.903(b) (―A State may 

request a higher classification for any reason in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA‖) 

and 40 CFR 51.903(a) Table 1.

We granted California‘s request for the South Coast Air Basin (and three other areas in 

California), except for Indian country pertaining to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and 

the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, on May 5, 2010 (see 75 FR 24409). Because the 

South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan was developed to address the extreme area planning requirements

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the CAA and EPA‘s implementing regulations, California 

did not need to make additional submittals in response to this reclassification for South Coast.

c. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Planning Requirements

In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address their ozone nonattainment 

problems, EPA issued a rule for implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, also known as 

the ozone implementation rule. We issued this rule in accordance with the statutory requirements 

of the CAA set forth in subparts 1 and 2 of Part D of Title 1, i.e., sections 171-179B, 181 and 

182.

The rule was proposed on June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802) and finalized in two phases. The 

Phase I rule addressed classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards; revocation of the 1-

hour ozone standards; antibacksliding principles for 1-hour requirements to ensure continuing 

progress toward attainment of the 1997 8-hour standards; attainment dates; and the timing of 

emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).

8

The Phase II 

rule addressed, among other things, the requirements for reasonably available control technology 

and measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress,(RFP), modeling and attainment 

demonstrations, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The rule is 

codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X. 

 

7

See South Coast Governing Board Resolution 07-9, (June 1, 2007), p. 12; CARB Resolution no. 07-41 (September 

22, 2007), p. 8, and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, November 28, 2007.

8 EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule since its initial 

promulgation in 2004. See 70 FR 30592 (May 25, 2005); 70 FR 39413 (July 8, 2005); 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 

2009); 75 FR 51960 (August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010). None of these revisions, either 

proposed or final, affect any of EPA‘s proposed actions here.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 5

The ozone implementation rules cover most CAA requirements for 1997 8-hour ozone 

state implementation plans. EPA has issued other documents that provide additional guidance on

these CAA requirements. We will provide references to these documents as appropriate.

B. 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality in the South Coast

The South Coast 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is located in the southern part of 

California. It comprises portions of Los Angeles County, all of Orange County, and the 

urbanized portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. It is home to almost 18 million 

people and is the nation‘s leading area for goods movement. See Figure IB-1 for a map of the 

South Coast nonattainment area and the major sources of air pollution in the nonattainment area. 

The local air district with primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain the 8-hour ozone

NAAQS in this area is the South Coast Air Quality Management District (―SCAQMD‖ or 

―District‖). For a complete description of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, please refer to 40 

CFR part 81.305.

8-Hour Ozone Levels in the South Coast

8-hour ozone levels in South Coast are some of the highest in the country with a design 

value of 0.112 ppm for the 2008-2010 period at the Crestline site.

9

 See EPA, Air Quality 

System, Quick Look Report, April 14, 2011.

10 See Figures IB-2 for 8-hour ozone trends. Figure 

IB-3 is a map of the current ozone monitoring network in the South Coast.

Since comprehensive monitoring began for ozone in the South Coast in the 1960s, the 

area has seen a decline in ambient levels. Data presented in Figure IB-2 have been validated. All 

data except 2010 data have been certified by SCAQMD. Data for all sites except Compton 

exceeds 75% annual completeness.

 

9

See EPA, Air Quality System Quick Look Report dated April 14, 2011 in the docket for today‘s action. A design 

value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific methodology from monitored air quality data and is 

used to compare an area‘s air quality to a NAAQS. The methodology for calculating design values for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is found in 40 CFR 50, Appendix I. This value is based on 2008 and 2009 data that are complete, 

validated, and certified by the District and on 2010 data that are complete and validated but not yet certified by the 

District, except for the Compton site, which does not have complete data. 

10 Ibid. This value is based on 2008 and 2009 data that are complete, validated, and certified by the District and on 

2010 data that are complete and validated but not yet certified by the District. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 6

Figure IB-1. South Coast Nonattainment Area and Location of Major Sources of Air 

Pollution

and Location of Major Sources of Air Pollution

Figure IB-1
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 7

Figure IB-2
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 8

Figure IB-3 – Ambient Ozone Monitoring Locations In the South Coast Air 

Basin 

Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/tao/AQ-Reports/AQMonitoringNetworkPlan/AppendixA.pdf
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 9

C. California Submittals Constituting the South Coast 8-hour Ozone

State Implementation Plan 

Five submittals or parts of submittals comprise the South Coast 8-hour ozone attainment 

plan. We will refer to these five submittals or parts of submittals collectively as the South Coast 

2007 8-hour ozone plan.

1. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, SCAQMD, adopted June 1, 2007, submitted 

with the adopting resolutions and other supporting documentation by CARB on 

November 28, 2007. See South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing 

Board Resolution 07-9; CARB Resolution No. 07-41, September 27, 2007; and letter,

James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, November 28, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

February 1, 2008 with enclosures (revising the RFP demonstrations for the South Coast 

and San Joaquin Valley air basins). This document will be referenced in this TSD and 

the Federal Register proposal as the ―2007 AQMP‖ and the ―South Coast 2007 AQMP‖. 

2. Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan, adopted 

September 27, 2007, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting 

documentation by CARB on November 16, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, 

September 27, 2007 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007, with enclosures.

This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register proposal as the 

―2007 State Strategy‖. 

3. Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy, adopted April 24, 2009, submitted with the adopting resolution and other 

supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009. See CARB Resolution No. 09-

34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. 

This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register proposal as the 

―revised 2007 State Strategy‖.11

4. Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, adopted on 

April 28, 2011 by CARB, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting 

documentation by CARB on May 18, 2011.

12 See CARB Board Resolution 11-24,

 

11 Only pages 11-27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the 

report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution, No. 09-34.

12

 Only Appendices B, C, and D of the 2011 Progress Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the 

report is for informational purposes only. See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated May 18, 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 10

April 28, 2011 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, May 18, 2011 with enclosures. This 

document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2011 

Progress Report. Appendix F of this SIP revision contained the SCAQMD‘s Revisions to 

the 2007 PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plans for the South Coast Air Basin and

Coachella Valley (SIP Revisions), adopted on March 4, 2011 by the SCAQMD 

Governing Board and approved by the CARB Board on April 28, 2011. This SIP revision 

includes an update on District rule implementation and commitments provided by 

SCAQMD for the 2007 AQMP for ozone and PM2.5. This SIP revision was included as 

Appendix F in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report and will be referred to as such.

5 . 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast 

and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, June 20, 2011, with Appendices. Adopted by the 

CARB Board on July 21, 2011 (see CARB Board Resolution 11-22), and submitted on 

July 29, 2011. Among other things, this SIP revision includes a revised RFP 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and revised 8-hour ozone precursor 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity.13 (2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision)

Future references in this TSD and the Federal Register notice to the 2007 State Strategy 

will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011, and the South Coast AQMP as revised in 

2011, respectively, unless explicitly noted otherwise. We will also refer to the 2007 State 

Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 as the revised 2007 State Strategy.

Finally, both the District and CARB have provided additional information on the South 

Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. This additional information includes: 

1. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy 

Director, Air Division, EPA–Region 9, May 18, 2011, with attachments. (2011 Progress 

Report Supplement).

2. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, EPA–Region 9, August 10, 2011. (2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement).

3. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy 

Director, Air Division, EPA–Region 9, August 10, 2011 (providing additional 

information on the transportation conformity budgets).

4. Electronic Mail, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, 

CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA–Region 9, August 9, 

2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

 

13 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision is submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for 

informational purposes only. See Attachment A, CARB Resolution No. 11-22.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 11

5. Electronic Mail, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, 

CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA–Region 9, August 11, 

2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

6. Letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Wienke Tax, EPA 

Region 9, Air Division, dated August 12, 2011 (providing clarifying information on CAA 

section 182(a)(1)(A) demonstration).

7. Letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Elizabeth Adams, 

Deputy Director, EPA Region 9, Air Division, dated August 23, 2011 (providing 

information on CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements).

8. Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated August 29, 2011 (providing information on CAA 

section 182(e)(5) requirements).

9. Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated November 18, 2011 (providing information on CAA 

section 182(e)(5) contingency measures).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 12

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness 

Determinations on SIP Submittals 

1. Public Notice and Public Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 110(a) and (l) require a State to provide reasonable public notice and 

hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. Thus, every SIP submittal

should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public hearing was held 

consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy. The District conducted public workshops, 

provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on 

June 1, 2007. Documentation accompanying the AQMP describes a public and agency outreach 

effort. See, e.g., the SCAQMD‘s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan (February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28, 2007 as enclosure IE, describing nine regional workshops held from October 24 through December 6, 2006 to 

discuss the draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) released on October 10, 2006. The 

sequence of public meetings held to discuss the elements of the draft State Strategy for 

California‘s 2007 SIP (State Strategy) is described in the CARB staff report developed for the 

CARB Board‘s consideration prior to adoption of the State Strategy. CARB also provided the 

required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its September 27, 2007 public 

hearing on the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider 

Approval of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for Attaining the Federal 8-hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 Standards in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley. See 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2007/ma092707.htm and 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/scsip07.pdf.

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public 

hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB, 

Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for California‘s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards, May 7, 

2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007. CARB provided the required public 

notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption 

of revisions to the Strategy, and its July 21, 2011 adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision.

14

 

14 See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 and CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009; See 

CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for 8-

Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, June 20, 2011 and CARB Resolution No. 11-22, 

July 21, 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15 , 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 13

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is 

complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that we have not 

affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of 

law six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A completeness review allows us 

to determine if the submittal includes all the necessary items and information we need to act on 

it. 

 

We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix V. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information and 

technical support information. The administrative information provides documentation that the 

State has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP-adoption process and thus we 

have a legally-adopted SIP revision in front of us. The technical support information provides us 

the information we need to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and 

maintenance of the air quality standards. 

We notify a state of our completeness determination by letter unless the submittal 

become complete by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal 

as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start the 12-month 

clock we have to act on the SIP submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2). 

The November 28, 2007 submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP became complete by 

operation of law on May 28, 2008. The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy 

and the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to the State Strategy became complete 

by operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively. 

We found CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report submittal of May 18, 2011 complete on June

13, 2011. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, US EPA Region 9, to James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 13, 2011.

We found CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submittal of July 29, 2011 complete on 

August 23, 2011. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, US EPA Region 9, to James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, dated August 23, 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 14

II. Evaluation of the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 15

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires states with marginal or above ozone nonattainment areas 

to submit, within two years of an area‘s designation as nonattainment, a ―comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources‖ of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in accordance with guidance provided by EPA. To implement this section, the 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule requires a State to submit an emissions inventory meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) for each of its subpart 2 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas by June 15, 2006 (for those areas designated nonattainment effective June 15, 2004). See 

40 CFR § 51.915. These inventories should meet the ozone–relevant data requirements of EPA‘s 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A).15 40 

CFR § 51.915. The inventories should also meet all other applicable EPA guidance.

EPA has issued the ―Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations,‖ EPA–454/ R–99–006, November 2005 (―EI Guidance,‖ available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html). EPA developed the EI Guidance to 

complement the CERR and to provide specific guidance on how to develop base year and 

baseline emissions inventories for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs. 

EPA recommends that the base year inventory required by CAA section 182(a)(1) should 

be for the calendar year 2002 for areas that were initially designated nonattainment for the 8-

hour ozone standards in 2004. EI Guidance, p. 8.16

Emissions inventories for ozone should include emissions of VOC, NOx, and carbon 

monoxide (CO) and represent an average summer week day during the ozone season. EI 

Guidance, pp. 14 and 17. States should include documentation in their submittals explaining how 

the emissions data were calculated. 70 FR 71612, at 71664 and EI Guidance, p. 40. In estimating 

mobile source emissions, states should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions 

available at the time the SIP is developed. 68 FR 32802, at 32854 and 70 FR 71612, at 71666. 

For California, the latest emissions model means the most recently EPA approved version of 

EMFAC. Currently, this is EMFAC2007. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).

The emissions inventories required under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule (as 

opposed to the CERR) are SIP revisions that must be approved by EPA under CAA section 

110(k) and are thus subject to the public hearing requirements of section 110(a)(2) and 110(l). 

 

15 In late 2008, EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) at 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008). 

The AERR updates the CERR reporting requirements by consolidating and harmonizing new emissions reporting 

requirements with pre-existing sets of reporting requirements under the NOx SIP Call (which does not apply to 

California). Because this AERR was not finalized until after the submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, its data 

requirements, in that they differ from the CERR requirements, do not apply to the South Coast 2007 AQMP. 

16 See also Memorandum, Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis to Regional Air Division Directors, ―2002 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,‖ November 18, 2002. This 

document is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/2002bye_gm.pdf and the docket for this final

action.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 16

For areas classified under subpart 2, the emissions inventory submittals are due one year before 

the attainment and/or RFP plan. Applicable EPA policy allows a state to defer the public hearing 

on its inventory until the time it adopts its attainment and/or RFP plan. 70 FR 71612 at 71664 

and memorandum, John Calcagni and William Laxton, EPA-OAQPS, ―Public Hearing 

Requirements for 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Areas,‖ September 29, 1992.

In addition to the base year inventory, states must also develop baseline inventories as 

part of the reasonable further progress demonstration required by CAA section 182(b)(1) and 

(c)(2)(B). The requirements for RFP baseline inventories will be discussed in section II.G. of this 

TSD.

2. Emissions Inventories in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and the Revised 

2007 State Strategy

Note: We discuss CARB‘s statewide inventory to provide background to our evaluation of the 

emissions inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. We are not approving any SIP action on 

the statewide inventory here, only on the South Coast inventory.

CARB submitted statewide inventories for the ozone precursors VOC and NOx as part of 

the 2007 State Strategy.17 See Appendix A of the Statewide Strategy for the emission inventory 

output tables and Appendix F of the Statewide Strategy for documentation of the emissions 

inventory. Summer planning inventories are provided for the base year of 2002 and 2005, and 

the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020, and the attainment year of 2023.18

Inventories are also provided for 2009, 2012, 2013 (for PM2.5 planning), 2010 (the1-hour ozone 

attainment date), and 2018 (the 8-hour ozone attainment date for the Coachella Valley, which is 

also under SCAQMD jurisdiction). These statewide emissions inventories are assembled and 

maintained by CARB in the California Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System 

(CEIDARS) and the California Emission Forecasting and Planning Inventory System (CEFS)

databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F of the 2007 State Strategy. In 2004, 

CARB submitted the 2002 base year inventory including all necessary data elements to EPA as 

required by the CERR.

The inventories in Appendix A of the 2007 State Strategy are summer season planning 

inventories on which the 2007 State Strategy is based. Baseline inventories incorporate 

reductions from control measures adopted prior to December 2006. 2007 State Strategy, 

Appendix A, p. 1. Specific adjustments for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 

time period, as well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 and 

pesticide emissions, are described in the introductory section to Appendix A of the State Strategy 

and also in Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

 

17 CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we use the term VOC. We will use the term VOC to 

refer to both ROG and VOC.

18 The Revised 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 South Coast AQMP address both the 8-hour ozone standard and the 

PM2.5 standards; therefore, baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for 8-hour ozone plans but 

also ones of importance for PM2.5 plans.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 17

The baseline planning inventories for VOC, NOx, and CO for the South Coast 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in 

Appendices III and V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. Average annual day, winter planning day 

and summer day planning inventories are provided for ozone precursors for the year 2002 (the 

base year for the attainment and RFP demonstrations), 2005, and the RFP years 2008, 2011, 

2014, 2017, and 2020, and for the attainment year of 2023. (2023 is the attainment year for 

extreme areas, South Coast‘s current classification). The inventories use EMFAC2007 for 

estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions. See South Coast 2007 AQMP page 3-1.The 

inventories in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III are consistent with the inventories in 

the 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A. These inventories provide the basis for the control measure 

analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations.

All inventories include emissions from point, area, on-road, and non-road sources. None 

specifically show emissions from non-anthropogenic sources (that is, natural sources) although 

inventories developed for input into the air quality modeling do include such sources. South 

Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 1-4. 

A summary of the 2002 base year and the baseline planning inventories for the years

2005, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 from the South Coast 2007 AQMP as submitted in 

November of 2007 is provided in Table A-1 below.

Additional Revisions to the Plan’s Base Year and Projected Baseline Inventories

As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, CARB submitted revised base year and baseline 

inventories. These revisions were the result of several factors including revised inventory 

methodologies, better activity and usage data, the reductions from measures adopted since 2007, 

and changes to economic forecasts for certain source categories in 2008 and later years.

CARB also made technical changes to the inventory for diesel trucks and buses as part of 

its December 2010 rulemaking amending its In-Use On-Road Truck and Bus Rule. These 

included updates and revisions to:

regional allocation factors

out-of-state vehicle miles traveled estimates

new vehicle inventory categories

lifetime mileage assumptions

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed 

Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the TractorTrailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, October 2010, p. 17.

CARB also comprehensively updated and revised the inventory for off-road equipment as 

part its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In-Use Off-Road Equipment Rule. These 

included updates and revisions to:

equipment population

hours of use

load factors

future equipment sales and activity
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 18

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed 

Amendments to the Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets and the Off-Road 

Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010, pp. 16-17.

Collectively, these revisions reduce the total 2002 base year NOx and VOC inventory by 

approximately 5 percent and 2 percent, respectively. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix 

B. See Table A-2 below. These percentage differences were calculated by taking the difference 

between the 2002 NOx and VOC base year emissions in Table A-1 (1078 tpd NOx and 896 tpd 

VOC, respectively), subtracting the revised 2002 NOx and VOC base year emissions in Table A2 (1024 tpd NOx and 881 tpd VOC), dividing by the 2002 base year emissions value from Table 

A-1, and multiplying by 100.

From late 2007 until mid-2009, California experienced an economic recession that 

greatly reduced the level of activity in the State‘s construction and goods movement sectors. 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. As a result, current and projected emission levels from 

these categories in the years up to 2017-2018 are now substantially lower than were originally 

projected in 2007 South Coast Ozone Plan as submitted in November 2007.

Recession-caused decreases in emissions do not affect either the Plan‘s modeling 

validation years (1997/2004/2005), base year (2002), or future year (2020 and 2023) inventories 

and thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in the Plan (that is, they do not in 

themselves affect the target level of overall emissions needed to demonstrate attainment) or the 

starting point for the reasonable further progress demonstration. Their principal effect is to 

reduce the reductions needed from the SIP‘s control strategy to demonstrate RFP in the years 

prior to 2018.

3. September 2011 Proposed Action on Emissions Inventories

In our September 2011 proposal on the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone SIP, we 

proposed to find that the 2002 emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP met the CAA section 182(a)(1) requirement for the State to submit a plan 

provision that includes a ―comprehensive, accurate, current, inventory of actual emissions from 

all sources of the relevant pollutant.‖ We also proposed to find that the baseline inventories in 

the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone SIP provided an adequate basis for the reasonably available 

control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See 

2011 TSD, section II.A. and 76 FR 57872, at 57875-57876.

4. Evaluation , Conclusion, and Final Action on Emissions Inventories

The emissions inventories were made available to the public for comment at the same 

time as the draft 2007 State Strategy and the draft South Coast 2007 AQMP, and were subject to 

public hearing as part of final version of the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 

AQMP. See CARB Resolution 07-28, p.3, and South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Governing Board Resolution 07-9, June 1, 2007, p. 2. Revisions to the inventory were also made 

available to the public for comment prior to adoption. See CARB, ―Notice of Public Hearing to 

Consider the Approval of Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for 8-Hour Ozone and 

Minor Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ June 20, 2011 and CARB 

Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 19

CARB has revised the RFP demonstration, the contingency measures, and the 

transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets in the South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan

to incorporate both methodology and (when appropriate) recession changes to the inventories. 

See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, and also sections II.E, G, and H of this TSD. 

Consistent with the 8-hour ozone implementation rule, the South Coast 2007 AQMP uses 

a 2002 base year inventory. When considered together with the inventory documentation in 

Appendix F of the State Strategy, Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and the air 

quality modeling documentation in Appendix V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, it contains all 

the elements required by EPA‘s emission inventory guidance. The on-road mobile source 

inventories use the latest EPA-approved version of California‘s mobile source emissions model, 

EMFAC2007. 

Based on our evaluation of the inventories and the recent changes to them, we find that 

the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 South Coast 

AQMP for 8-hour ozone, as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, provides for a 

―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant‖ at the time of their submittal, as required by CAA section 182(a)(1). We also find that 

the future year baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP provide an 

adequate basis for the SIP‘s reasonably available control measure demonstration and the adjusted 

base year inventory in the RFP demonstration.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Emissions Inventory

We received several comments on our proposed approval of the emissions inventory. We 

have reviewed these comments and provided responses to them. See section III of this TSD. No 

issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the emissions inventories in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP for 8-hour ozone are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA 

and EPA guidance.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 20

Table A-1

Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, South Coast 2007 AQMP

(tons per summer average day)

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

NOx

Stationary and Area 

Sources 89 91 82 74 71 69 69 69

On-Road Mobile 

Sources 611 563 427 354 287 232 184 161

Off-Road Mobile 

Sources 378 365 339 310 292 278 272 275

Total 1078 1020 848 738 650 578 524 506

VOC

Stationary and Area 

Sources 317 277 252 258 264 271 278 285

On-Road Mobile 

Sources 360 302 214 175 148 129 114 103

Off-Road Mobile 

Sources 219 218 189 170 157 150 147 148

Total 896 796 655 603 569 549 538 536
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 21

Table A-1

Emission Inventory Summary for the South Coast 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, South Coast 2007 AQMP

(tons per summer average day)

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

CO

Stationary and

Area Sources 89 110 115 113 113 114 116 117

On-Road Mobile 

Sources 3646 2951 2098 1688 1385 1149 971 839

Off-Road Mobile 

Sources 1230 1201 1193 1192 1218 1251 1297 1355

Total 4965 4262 3406 2993 2715 2515 2385 2312

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Tables B-1, B-2, B-3, B-5, B-6, B-7, B-8, and B-9. Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 22

Table A-2. Revised Emissions Inventory Summary for the South Coast

Ozone Nonattainment Area (summer planning inventory emissions in tons 

per day)a

Emissions Inventory 

category

NOx

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Stationary/Areawide 

Sources 89 82 73 71 68 68 68

On-road Mobile Sources

652 422 327 276 224 185 140

Off-road Mobile Sources

283 225 191 185 187 176 170

TOTAL

1024 728 591 532 479 428 378

VOC

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Stationary/Areawide 

Sources

318 247 252 254 260 267 273

On-road Mobile Sources

361 211 171 135 119 107 98

Off-road Mobile Sources

202 174 156 146 141 140 142

TOTAL

881 632 580 535 520 514 513

a Numbers may not add due to rounding. Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B-2. Incorporates reductions 

from measures adopted prior to 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 23

B. Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires states to submit a plan which ―shall provide for attainment 

of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ The Act requires SIPs for nonattainment 

areas to demonstrate that the area will attain the 8-hour ozone standards as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than outside dates established by the Act. The Phase 2 Rule provides timing 

and guidance for this requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and identifies the modeling 

guidance available to make the demonstration. Extreme 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

must attain the standards no later than June 15, 2024. An attainment demonstration SIP must 

include technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing violations of

the NAAQS within nonattainment areas; adopted measures with schedules for implementation and 

other means and techniques necessary and appropriate for attainment; and contingency measures 

required under section 172(c)(9) of the Act that can be implemented without further action by the 

State or the Administrator to cover failures to meet RFP milestones and/or attainment. 

EPA‘s regulations at 40 CFR 51.908(c) specifically require that areas classified as moderate 

and above submit a modeled attainment demonstration based on a photochemical grid modeling 

evaluation or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective 

as photochemical modeling. Section 51.908(c) also requires each attainment demonstration to be 

consistent with the provisions of section 51.112, including Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (i.e., 

 ̳ ̳EPA‘s Guideline on Air Quality Models,‘‘ 68 FR 18440, April 15, 2003). EPA has issued the 

―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality 

Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze‖, EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007, (available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf, which describes the 

criteria that an air quality model and its application should meet to qualify for use in an 8- hour 

ozone attainment demonstration. 

As with any predictive tool, there are inherent uncertainties associated with photochemical 

modeling. EPA‘s guidance recognizes these limitations and provides approaches for considering 

other analytical evidence to help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is likely. This process is 

called a WOE determination. EPA‘s modeling guidance for the 1997 8-hour attainment 

demonstration procedures includes a WOE analysis as an integral part of the attainment 

demonstration. This guidance strongly recommends that all attainment demonstrations include 

supplemental analyses beyond the recommended modeling. These supplemental analyses would 

provide additional information such as data analyses, and emissions and air quality trends, which 

would help strengthen the overall conclusion from the photochemical modeling. A WOE analysis is 

specifically recommended to be included as part of any attainment demonstration SIP where the 

modeling results predict Future Design Values (FDVs) ranging from 82 to less than 88 ppb (EPA‘s 

2007 A.D. guidance documents). 

2. Overview of the Conceptual Description, Modeling Approach, and Modeling Protocol in the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP 

a. Conceptual Model
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 24

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations on conceptual models for 8-hour ozone are discussed in the ―Guidance on 

the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 

Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze‖, EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007, the Guidance in Section 11,

How Do I Get Started?- A ―Conceptual Description‖. A ―conceptual description‖ is a qualitative 

way of characterizing the nature of an area‘s nonattainment or regional haze problem. It is best 

described by identifying key components of a description.19 The guidance identifies twelve key 

components of a description for 8 hour ozone 20:

Conceptual Model of an 8-Hour Ozone Episode in the AQPM

The conceptual model of an 8-Hour ozone episode for the South Coast Air Basin is discussed in 

Chapter 4 of Appendix V of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, and in the Draft Modeling Protocol for 

Ozone and Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update.21 (available at: 

http://aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/aqmp/Appendix_V.pdf)

Several field studies (SCAQS, [1987], and SCOS97, [1998]) and previous AQMPs have 

described at length the development of an ozone episode in the Basin. The focus of many of 

these analyses was to simulate the observed 1-hour maximum concentration in the modeling 

domain. The District used Classification and Regression Tree analysis (CART) to determine 

whether the conceptual model for a 1-hour ozone episode differed from the meteorological 

profile characterizing an 8-hour average ozone episode in the Basin. The results of the 

analysis indicated that the peak 1-hour episodes were a subset of the 8-hour episodes and the 

meteorological profiles contributing to both scenarios were nearly identical. As such, the 

development of the 8-hour conceptual model for the Basin and the methodology to select 

and characterize episodes relies on the basic models constructed to describe the Basin 1-hour 

ozone episode.

The Draft Modeling Protocol provides an extended discussion of the meteorological and air 

quality profile of four of the five 2004 and 2005 episodes, in addition to the August 1997 

episode, selected for evaluation in the ozone attainment demonstration. The August 2-9, 

2005 meteorological episode was selected as a replacement for the June 2004 episode after 

the release of the Draft Modeling Protocol. In general, elevated concentrations of ozone 

(both 1- and 8-hour average) occur under a west coast or Four Corners ridge of high 

pressure aloft. Typically, the 500 mb pressure surface heights above mean sea level (msl) 

exceed 5880 m and generate a strong low level subsidence inversion (10o C in strength or 

higher). The surface pressure gradient (i.e., wind forcing) typically is less than 5 mb 

between the coast and the desert (approximately 200 km in distance) and days often begin 

with a deck of morning coastal stratus that extends into the near valleys then burns off in the 

 

19 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, 

PM2.5, and Regional Haze‖, EPA -454/B-07-002, April 2007, p. 126.

20 Guidance, pp. 126-127.

21 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 25

late morning hours. The more severe episodes tend to have neutral to slightly off shore 

pressure gradient forcing and clear skies.

Each of the 2004 and 2005 meteorological episodes selected for the ozone attainment 

demonstration fit this model. Figure V-4-3 illustrates the 500 mb upper air structure over the 

west coast during the July 2005 meteorological episode. Figure V-4-4 provides the 1200 

UTC (4:00 am PST) temperature profile for July 16, 2005.22

b. Modeling Approach

A summary of the modeling methodologies used in the Final 2007 AQMP is listed in Table V-1-1., 

below. The methodologies used in the 2003 AQMP are provided for comparison.23

c. Modeling Protocol, Peer Review, and Advisory Committee

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for a modeling protocol are discussed in the Guidance in Section 12.0: 

What Does A Modeling/Analysis Protocol Do, And What Does Developing One Entail? 24. 

 

22 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-12.

23 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-1-3.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 26

As noted above, the most important function of a protocol is to serve as a means for 

planning and communicating up front how a modeled attainment demonstration will be 

performed. The protocol is the means by which States/Tribes, U.S. EPA, and other 

stakeholders can assess the applicability of default recommendations and develop 

alternatives. A good protocol should lead to extensive participation by stakeholders in 

developing the demonstration. It should also reduce the risk of spending time and resources 

on efforts which are unproductive or inconsistent with EPA policy.

The protocol also serves several important, more specific functions. First, it should identify 

who will help the State/Tribe or local air quality agency (generally the lead agency) 

undertake and evaluate the analyses needed to support a defensible demonstration (i.e., the 

stakeholders). Second, it should identify how communication will occur among 

States/Tribes and stakeholders to develop consensus on various issues. Third, the protocol 

should describe the review process applied to key steps in the demonstration. Finally, it 

should also describe how changes in methods and procedures or in the protocol itself will be 

agreed upon and communicated with stakeholders and the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional 

Office(s). Major steps to implement the protocol should be discussed with the appropriate 

U.S. EPA Regional Office(s) as they are being decided. States/Tribes may choose to update 

the protocol as major decisions are made concerning forthcoming analyses.

The Guidance also lists key elements that should be discussed in the protocol.25

1. Overview of Modeling/Analysis Project

a. Management structure

b. Technical committees or other communication procedures to be used

c. Participating organizations

d. Schedule for completion of attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress 

analyses

e. Description of the conceptual model for the nonattainment area (or Class I area(s))

2. Model and Modeling Inputs

a. Rationale for the selection of air quality, meteorological, and emissions models

b. Modeling domain

c. Horizontal and vertical resolution

d. Specification of initial and boundary conditions

e. Episode selection

f. Description of meteorological model setup

g. Development of emissions inputs

h. Geographic area identified for application of the attainment test(s)

i. Methods used to quality assure emissions, meteorological, and other model inputs

3. Model Performance Evaluation

a. Describe ambient data base

b. List evaluation procedures

 

24 Guidance, p. 133.

25 Guidance, p. 134.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 27

c. Identify possible diagnostic testing that could be used to improve model 

performance

4. Supplemental Analyses

a. List additional analyses to be completed to corroborate the model attainment test

b. Outline plans for conducting a weight of evidence determination, should it be

necessary

5. Procedural Requirements

a. Identify how modeling and other analyses will be archived and documented

b. Identify specific deliverables to EPA Regional Office

Modeling Protocol in the AQMP

The Modeling Protocol for Ozone and Particulate Matter Modeling in Support of the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Update Draft Report 

May 9, 2006 is included as an attachment to the South Coast 2007 AQMP26. 

The protocol for the 2007 AQMP was reviewed by a technical and advisory group.

The Scientific, Technical, and Modeling Peer Review Advisory Group (STMPRAG) role 

expands upon that of the MWG and includes experts in socioeconomic assessment and 

human health, providing review of AQMD modeling, monitoring and related scientific 

issues. The STMPRAG assists AQMD in resolving technical issues related to air quality 

and socio-economic modeling by providing ongoing technical review and consensus of 

procedures and analyses. The STMPRAG consists of approximately 20 members appointed 

by the Governing Board, with representatives from USEPA, CARB, Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG), the California Small Business Alliance (CSBA), 

Southern California Edison (SCE), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), and 

technical experts from universities and consultant firms.27

A summary of preliminary critiques of peer reviewers of the modeling protocol is included in the 

2007 AQMP.28

EPA Discussion 

The protocol adequately addresses the management structure, including the technical advisory 

committees. The required technical elements outlined in the Guidance are included in the protocol, 

and the individual elements are discussed below. Future protocol should address the procedural 

requirements in greater detail. 

3. Air Quality Model Selection

 

26 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 20 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate 

Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 

Update, Draft Report May 9, 2006 .

27 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 20 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate 

Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 

Update Draft Report May 9, 2006. 

28 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 4.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 28

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for air quality model selection are discussed in the Guidance in

Section13.0: ―What Should I Consider In Choosing An Air Quality Model?

A model should meet several general criteria for it to be a candidate for consideration in an 

attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress assessment. These general criteria are 

consistent with requirements in 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W (U.S. 

EPA, 2005d). We are not recommending a specific model for use in attainment 

demonstration or uniform rate of progress assessment. At present, there is no single model 

which has been extensively tested and shown to be clearly superior than its alternatives. 

Thus, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a ―preferred model‖ for use in 

attainment demonstrations of the NAAQS for PM2.5. Based on the language in 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix W, models used for these purposes should meet requirements for 

―alternative models‖. 29

States/Tribes should use a non-proprietary model, which is a model whose source code is 

available for free (or for a ―reasonable‖ cost). Furthermore, the user must be able to revise 

the code to perform diagnostic analyses and/or to improve the model‘s ability to describe 

observations in a credible manner. Several additional prerequisites should be met for a 

model to be used to support an attainment demonstration.

(1) It should have received and been revised in response to a scientific peer review.

(2) It should be appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical basis.

(3) It should be used with a data base which is adequate to support its application.

(4) It should be shown to have performed well in past ozone or PM modeling applications.

(If the application is the first for a particular model, then the State should note why it 

believes the new model is expected to perform sufficiently.)

(5) It should be applied consistently with a protocol on methods and procedures.

Air Quality Model Selection in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

The selection process, models considered, issues, and comments for the air quality and 

meteorological models are discussed in the modeling protocol on pages 25-27. These issues are

summarized in TABLE 3: Summary of Proposed 2007 AQMP Model Selection and Application, of 

the modeling protocol.30

 

29 Guidance, p. 136.

30 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p.13-18 DRAFT Modeling Protocol for Ozone And Particulate 

Matter Modeling in Support of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 

Update Draft Report May 9, 2006.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 29

The model selection process is also discussed in South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Chapters 1 

and 4.

CAMx was selected as the modeling tool used in the Final 2007 AQMP ozone modeling 

attainment demonstration. CAMx is an urban scale, three-dimensional, grid-type, numerical 

simulation model. For the Final 2007 AQMP, CAMx has been coupled with SAPRC99 

gaseous chemistry for the ozone attainment demonstration. In addition, as previously 

discussed, CAMx is one of the modeling platforms recommended by the peer review.

Modeling Approach
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 30

CAMx simulations were conducted using a Lambert Conformal projection over the 5 km

squared grid SCOS97 modeling domain. The modeling analyses were run using 16 vertical 

layers up to 5000 m above ground level. CAMx simulations were generated for six 

meteorological episodes including one period in 2004, four periods in 2005 and one in 1997. 

Table V-1-2 provides a comparison for the meteorological episodes evaluated in the current 

and preceding attainment demonstrations. The August, 1997 SCOS97 meteorological 

episode was retained for this analysis to provide a bridge from the 2003 AQMP attainment 

demonstration. The five episodes observed in 2004 and 2005 occurred during MATES-III, a 

period of enhanced air quality monitoring in the Basin. Supporting MATES-III, the District 

operated three radar wind profilers in the Basin, with radio acoustic sounding systems and 

also enhanced its Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) programs. 

Additional profiler data was obtained from operating sites in Ventura and San Diego

Counties. 31

The model system configuration is described in Table V-4-6, below.

TABLE V-4-6: Air Quality Modeling System Configuration32

 

31 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V-1-10.

32 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V-4-17.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 31

EPA Discussion

EPA believes that the air quality model selection process was appropriate for ozone modeling in the 

South Coast Basin. The model and air quality modeling system configuration are appropriate for 

the specific application on a theoretical basis. The air quality modeling system configuration

received and was revised in response to scientific peer review. CAMx was shown to have 

performed well in a previous ozone modeling applications (although it was not the model that was 

the basis for the 2003 attainment demonstration).

4. Episode selection

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s Recommendations for episode selection are discussed in the Guidance in Section 14.1: What 

Are The Most Important Criteria For Choosing Episodes? The Guidance lists the criteria for 

episode selection. 

At a minimum, four criteria should be used to select time periods which are appropriate to 

model33: 

1) Simulate a variety of meteorological conditions: 

a) 8-Hour Ozone- Choose time periods which reflect a variety of meteorological 

conditions which frequently correspond with observed 8-hour daily maxima > 84 

ppb at multiple monitoring sites.

2) Model time periods in which observed concentrations are close to the appropriate baseline 

design value or visibility impairment.

3) Model periods for which extensive air quality/meteorological data bases exist.

4) Model a sufficient number of days so that the modeled attainment test applied at each 

monitor violating the NAAQS is based on multiple days.

Episode Selection Discussion in the AQMP

Episode selection is discussed in Chapter 4 of Appendix V in the AQMP, and in the draft modeling 

protocol.

The meteorological episodes span three years: 2004 and 2005 when the MATES-III 

monitoring program was in effect and primary modeling episode used in the 2003 AQMP, 

August 5-6, 1997, which occurred during the 1997 Southern California Ozone Study 

(SCOS97). The 2004 and 2005 episodes occurring during the MATES-III sampling program 

integrate data from the network of radar wind and temperature profiles distributed 

throughout Southern California. In addition, advances in satellite data acquisition used in 

meteorological model initialization since SCOS97 and readily available global model output 

have shifted the focus of regional meteorological modeling from diagnostic/objective 

 

33 Guidance p. 141. The four identified primary criteria for choosing meteorological episodes to model, discuss 

the secondary criteria, which may be important in specific applications, are discussed in greater detail on pages 

141-147. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 32

analysis towards 4-dimensional data assimilation in prognostic modeling. Equally important, 

the 2004-2005 episodes occurred in the post California Phase III reformulation period and 

represent the current VOC emissions profile. The 1997 episode is one of several 

meteorological episodes that were intensively monitored through the SCOS97 field program 

and was included in the analysis to provide continuity between the Final 2007 AQMP and 

2003 Ozone Plans. The base year for the ozone modeling demonstration and emissions 

inventory characterization is 2002.34

EPISODE SELECTION

The 2003 AQMP benefited from the intensive monitoring conducted under the Southern

California Ozone Study where the August 4-7, 1997 episode was the cornerstone of the 

modeling analysis. The requirements for multiple episode days at individual stations pose a 

different challenge for the Final 2007 AQMP. Five additional meteorological episodes with 

regionally observed higher ozone concentrations were added to the 2003 AQMP modeling 

episode. The five episodes observed in 2004 and 2005 occurred during MATES-III, a period 

of enhanced air quality monitoring in the Basin. Supporting MATES-III, the District 

operated three radar wind profilers in the Basin, with radio acoustic sounders. Additional 

profiler data was obtained from operating sites in Ventura and San Diego Counties. Table V4-5 lists the complement of meteorological episodes used in the ozone attainment 

demonstration. Selection of episodes from 2004 and 2005 was also made to avoid the 

commingling associated with the Phase III California Fuel Reformulation where the primary 

oxygenate was changed from MTBE to ethanol. Commingling of ethanol and nonethanol 

based fuels leads to enhanced evaporative VOC emissions and thus more ozone. 

Quantification of the amount of commingling taking place on a daily or episodic basis was 

nearly impossible. Implementation of the fuel switch from MTBE to ethanol took place in 

California during 2003 and was assumed to be completed by December 31, 2003. Selecting 

meteorological episodes for the post 2003 emissions reduced the uncertainty associated with 

the estimation of the VOC emissions inventory due to commingling.35

Statistical Episode Characterization and Ranking

CAMx simulations were generated for six meteorological episodes including two periods in 

2004, three periods in 2005 and one in 1997. Table V-4-5 characterizes the selected episodes 

two ways: first by an assessment of the meteorological profile using a statistical model to 

rank the episodes based on meteorological stagnation potential and second by comparing 

observed maximum ozone concentrations to the annual design values.

The meteorological classification is based on an empirical analysis presented in the 2003

AQMP which provides both a stagnation severity rank (1 being the highest) and the 

percentile the meteorological episode had in a 22-year distribution. The observed maximum 

8-hour average concentrations on each episode day, and the average of the 8- hour 

maximum concentrations observed for each multi-day episode are also provided for 

comparison to the annual 4th highest 8-hour average ozone value observed in the year that 

the episode takes place.

 

34 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., pp. V-4-1, 2.

35 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-11.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 33

Briefly, the selected episode days mostly rank in the 95th percentile or higher for 

meteorological stagnation potential. The episode average of the 8-hour maximum 

concentrations is within 5 ppb of the annual 4th highest 8-hour observed concentration for 

four of the six simulation periods.36

TABLE V-4-5

37

 

36 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V. p. V-4-15.

37 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V-4-16.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 34

TABLE 7: Summary of Ozone Episodes to be Simulated for the 2007 AQMP38

EPA Discussion of Episode Selection

The episode selection criteria outlines in the Guidance have been adequately addressed. The 

selected episodes represent a variety of meteorological conditions which frequently correspond with 

observed 8-hour daily maxima > 84 ppb at multiple monitoring sites, and are time periods in which 

observed concentrations are close to the appropriate baseline design value or visibility impairment.

 

Extensive air quality and meteorological data bases exist for the 1997 Southern California Ozone 

Study (SCOS97) and the 2004-2005 MATES – III study. There is a sufficient number of days so 

 

38 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, DRAFT Modeling Protocol, p. 40.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 35

that the modeled attainment test applied at each monitor violating the NAAQS is based on multiple 

days. This is discussed in greater detail in the Section II. B. 9: Modeled Attainment Test, below.

5. Domain Size and Spatial Resolution

EPA Recommendations:

EPA‘s recommendations for modeling domain size, horizontal resolution and vertical resolution are 

discussed in the Guidance in Section 15.1: How is the Size of the Modeling Domain Chosen?39

a. Domain Size

The EPA recommendations for domain size are summarized in the paragraph below:

The principal determinants of model domain size are the nature of the ozone and/or PM2.5 

problem and the scale of the emissions which impact the nonattainment area. Isolated 

nonattainment areas that are not impacted by regional transport of ozone and/or PM and its 

precursors may be able to use a relatively small domain. Some areas of the western U.S. 

may fall into this category. Most nonattainment areas in the eastern U.S. have been shown to 

be impacted by transported ozone and/or PM and ozone and/or PM precursors from 

hundreds of miles or more upwind of the receptor area (U.S EPA, 1998b)40 (U.S. EPA, 

2005b)41. The modeling domain should be designed so that all major upwind source areas 

that influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The 

influence of boundary conditions should be minimized to the extent possible.

The inner domain of a nested model application should include the nonattainment area

surrounding counties and/or States. The size of the inner domain depends on several factors.

Among them are:

1) The size of the nonattainment area.

2) Proximity to other large source areas and/or nonattainment areas.

-Relatively isolated areas may be able to use a smaller fine grid domain.

-Nearby source areas should be included in the fine grid.

3) Proximity of topographical features which appear to affect observed air quality.

4) Whether the model application is intended to cover multiple nonattainment areas.

5) Typical wind speeds and re-circulation patterns.

-Very light wind speeds and re-circulation patterns may obviate the need for a large fine grid 

domain.

6) Whether the photochemical model utilizes one-way or two-way nested grids.

 

39 Guidance, p. 153.

40 U.S EPA, (1998b)―Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport 

Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone; Final Rule,‖ 63 FR 57,356 (October 

27, 1998).

41 U.S. EPA, (2005b), ―Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule- Air

Quality Modeling‖, March 2005. Docket number OAR-2003-0053-0162. 

http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/pdfs/finaltech02.pdf
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 36

-The fine grid domain of a model with one-way nested grids may need to be larger 

(compared to a model with two-way nested grids). The grid needs to be large enough to 

capture re-circulation due to shifting wind directions. A two-way nested grid model allows 

for continuous feedback from the fine grid to the coarse grid and vice versa. 

7) Computer and time resource issues.

b. Horizontal Resolution

EPA‘s recommendations for horizontal resolution for ozone modeling are summarized in Section

15.3.1: Horizontal Resolution Recommendations for Ozone 42

For coarse portions of regional grids, we recommend a grid cell size of 12 km if feasible, but 

not larger than 36 km. For urban and fine scale portions of nested regional grids, it may be 

desirable to use grid cells about 4 km, but not larger than 12 km. States/Tribes should 

examine past model applications and data analyses for their area when choosing the fine grid 

resolution. Past model applications and data analyses may help determine whether a grid cell 

size as small as 4 km (or smaller) is necessary for a particular area. Model performance and 

the relative response to emissions controls should be considered in the decision. 

States/Tribes should consider diagnostic tests to assess the difference in model performance 

and response from varying model grid resolution, particularly in oxidant-limited areas.

All ozone monitor locations within a nonattainment area should ordinarily be placed within 

the fine scale portion of a nested regional grid if nested models are used. States/Tribes 

choosing an urban grid or fine portion of a nested grid with cells 12 km or larger should 

consider applying plume-in-grid algorithms to major point sources of NOx. The use of 

plume-in-grid should be discussed with the appropriate EPA Regional Office. 

c. Vertical Resolution

EPA‘s recommendations for vertical resolution for ozone modeling are summarized Section 15.4: 

How Should the Vertical Layers Be Selected?

As described in Section 16, the preferred approach for generating meteorological data fields 

for input to air quality simulation models is to use a prognostic meteorological model with 

four dimensional data assimilation (FDDA). Such models normally use more than 30 

vertical layers. To minimize a number of assumptions needed to interface meteorological 

and air quality models, it is better to use identical vertical resolution in the air quality and 

meteorological models. However, application of air quality models with as many as 30 

vertical layers may not be feasible or cost effective. In this section we identify factors to 

consider in choosing the number of vertical layers chosen for the air quality model 

applications.43

In the past, short ozone episodes of only several days usually encompassed periods of 

mostly clear skies with very little precipitation. As such, ozone models often did not 

 

42 Guidance, p. 157.

43 Guidance, p. 159.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 37

explicitly model clouds or precipitation. However, we are recommending modeling longer 

episodes (or even a full ozone season) for ozone and a full year for PM2.5 and regional haze 

applications. Therefore the photochemical model needs to account for cloud processes and a 

full range of precipitation types. In order to adequately parameterize these processes, the top 

of the modeling domain should typically be set at the100 millibar level (~16,000 meters). In 

turn, this means that many more vertical layers will be needed to capture the meteorological 

processes both below and above the boundary layer, up to the top of the model.

The accuracy of predicted base case ozone and PM concentrations will be affected by how 

well the model is able to characterize dilution of ozone, PM, and precursors. This, in turn, 

depends in part on how precisely the model can estimate mixing heights (i.e., the PBL). The 

precision of mixing height estimates is affected by the thickness of the model‘s vertical 

layers aloft which are near the anticipated mixing height (Dolwick, 1999)44. Ozone 

concentrations are most heavily influenced by the rate of rise in the morning mixing height 

and the maximum afternoon mixing height. Since PM is measured as a 24-hour average 

concentration, PM is also influenced by the strength of nighttime mixing and the presence of 

a low level inversion. Because mixing heights may vary on different days and it is necessary 

to simulate numerous days and locations, model predictions can be influenced by the 

number of vertical layers considered by the model.

Placement of vertical layers within the planetary boundary layer is also an important issue. 

For practical reasons, it is best to have an air quality model‘s vertical layers align with the 

interface between layers in the meteorological model. In view of the importance of carefully 

specifying the temporal variation in mixing height, we recommend high precision below and 

near the anticipated maximum afternoon mixing height. In addition, specifying the vertical 

extent of mixing overnight during stable conditions is also an important consideration in 

determining the vertical layer structure. In this regard, we recommend that the lowest layer

in the air quality model be no more than 50 meters thick. In general, layers below the 

daytime mixing height should not be too thick, or large unrealistic step increases in mixing 

may occur. Layers above the boundary layer are important for characterizing clouds and 

precipitation, but are less important to the daily mixing processes of pollutants. Therefore, 

vertical resolution above the boundary layer is typically much coarser.

There is no correct minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment

demonstration. The vertical resolution will vary depending on the application. Recent 

applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100mb) have used anywhere 

from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8-15 layers approximately within the boundary layer 

(below 2500 m) and 4-6 layers above the PBL (Baker, 2004b)45, (Hu, 2004)46.

There are also ozone model applications which may not need to consider the full set of 

meteorological data through the tropopause. These applications typically use vertical 

 

44 Dolwick, P.D., C. Jang, and B. Timin, (1999), ―Effects of Vertical Grid Resolution on Photochemical Grid 

Modeling‖, Paper 99-309, Presented at 99th AWMA Meeting, St.Louis, MO, (June 1999).

45 Baker K., (2004b), ―Meteorological Modeling Protocol For Application to PM2.5/Haze/OzoneModeling Projects‖, 

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium / Midwest Regional Planning Organization, Des Plaines IL.

46 Hu, Y., D. Cohen, M.T. Odman, and T. Russell, (2004), ―Fall Line Air Quality Study- Draft Final Report- Air Quality 

Modeling of the August 11-20, 2000 Air Pollution Episode.‖
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 38

domains which extend up to 4 or 5 km. These applications are most appropriate for short 

ozone episodes that occur under high pressure conditions (little cloud cover or precipitation). 

In these cases, fewer vertical layers are needed to represent the atmosphere up to the top of 

the domain (4-5 km). However, where appropriate, EPA encourages the use of full-scale 

one-atmosphere models which account for all atmospheric processes up to ~100 mb.

Discussion of Domain Size, Horizontal Resolution and Vertical Resolution in the AQMP

i. Domain Size and Horizontal Resolution are discussed in Chapter 4 of the South Coast 2007 

AQMP, and summarized below.

The modeling domain used in the photochemical modeling analysis, also shown in

Figure V-4-1, encompasses the entire Basin, Ventura County, Antelope Valley

(AVAQMD), San Diego County, the Coachella Valley, portions of the Mojave

Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), and Imperial County. Ventura

County, the Antelope Valley and Mojave Desert are classified as "moderate" (attainment

year: 2010). These areas experience pollutant transport from the Basin, and at times are an 

upwind source of pollution. San Diego County is classified as ―basic‖ with an attainment 

year of 2009 and Imperial County is classified as ―marginal‖ with an attainment year of 

(2007).47

FIGURE V-4-1

48

Southern California Modeling Domain Used in the Ozone Attainment Demonstration

As previously stated, the CAMx ozone simulations were run on a 5 km squared grid using a 

Lambert Conformal projection of the SCOS97 modeling domain depicted in Figure V-4-1. 

The modeling analyses were run using 16 vertical layers up to 5000 m above ground level. 

 

47

 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-4.

48

 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-7.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 39

The eastern extent of the domain is approximately 100 miles offshore of the Basin. The 

large domain was chosen to minimize uncertainties in the upwind boundary conditions.49

ii. Vertical Resolution

For sufficient vertical representation of the atmosphere, 16 vertical layers will be used for 

the CAMx ozone modeling, to a top height of nearly 5000 m AGL. Five of the layers will be 

below 500 m AGL (the nominal height of the summer afternoon mixing height within the 

Los Angeles coastal plain). The computational resources required for the annual particulate 

matter modeling necessitate a reduction in the number of layers used in the CAMx model for 

particulates. For this, eight vertical layers will used to a top height of approximately 5000 m 

AGL. The proposed vertical structure for the ozone and PM models are shown in Table 6, 

along side of the MM5 vertical structure.50

 

49

 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-15.

50 DRAFT Modeling Protocol, South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 38.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 40

TABLE 6: Vertical Structures for the CAMx Ozone and PM Simulations with Corresponding MM5 

Meteorological Model Layers51

EPA Discussion 

EPA believes that the domain size and grid resolution is appropriate for this application. The 

modeling domain is sufficiently large so that all major upwind source areas that influence the 

downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain and the influence of boundary 

conditions is minimized to the extent possible. The grid cells size of 5 km meets EPA‘s 

recommendation for urban and fine scale portions of nested regional grids. The number of vertical 

layers meets EPA requirements, and is sufficient for ozone modeling in the South Coast Basin. 

 

51 DRAFT Modeling Protocol, South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 38.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 41

6. Initial and Boundary Conditions

EPA Recommendations 

EPA‘s recommendations for Initial and Boundary Conditions are discussed in the Guidance in 

Section 15.2: How are the Initial and Boundary Conditions Specified? 52

Air quality models require specification of initial conditions for model species in each grid 

cell in the model domain (in all layers) and boundary conditions for all grid cells along each 

of the boundaries (in all layers). Generation of initial and boundary conditions for individual 

model species include gas-phase mechanism species, aerosols, non-reactive species and 

tracer species. There is no satisfactory way to specify initial conditions in every grid cell. 

Thus, we recommend using a ―ramp-up‖ period by beginning a simulation prior to a period 

of interest. Sensitivity simulations can be completed to determine the necessary length of the 

ramp-up period. A longer ramp-up period may be needed for very large domains where the 

characterization of long range transport is important. 

One atmosphere model applications for ozone and PM may commonly use global models to 

specify boundary conditions. This is especially important for PM species due to their long 

lifetimes. A number of recent studies show that long-range, intercontinental transport of 

pollutants is important for simulating seasonal/annual ozone and particulate matter diminish 

the importance of initial conditions103. We recommend a ramp-up period of at least 2-3 

days for ozone modeling. Due to longer lifetimes of fine particulate matter, we recommend a 

ramp-up period of at least 5-10 days for PM2.5. In this way, the choice of initial conditions 

is not likely to influence the modeling results. For nested model applications, initial 

conditions can be specified using model predictions from the outer grid if the nested grids 

are started after the beginning of the simulation for the outer grid.

Boundary conditions can be specified in several ways. One option is to nest the area of 

interest within a much larger domain using nested regional models, as described previously. 

As noted above in Section 15.1, use of a large regional domain acts to diminish the 

importance of boundary conditions. Alternatively, initial and boundary conditions can be 

derived from another regional nested modeling application or from a global model104. 

Another option is to use default initial and boundary concentration profiles representing 

relatively clean conditions which have been formulated from available measurements or 

results obtained from prior modeling studies, (e.g. prescribing 35 ppb for annual ozone). 

Another approach to consider is using the model‘s simulated pollutant values (generated for 

emissions) averaged over one or more of the upper layers to specify a value for the lateral 

and top boundary conditions. This approach allows for better representation of spatial and 

temporal variation of boundary conditions (i.e., diurnal/seasonal/vertical profiles). This 

method also avoids arbitrarily guessing at the future year boundary conditions.

If there is no larger regional model application available, then it is recommended that 

background boundary conditions be used to specify initial and boundary concentrations for 

the attainment demonstration modeling. However, concentration fields derived from a larger 

 

52 Guidance p. 153.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 42

domain regional or global chemistry model (i.e. nesting approach) is considered more 

credible than the assumption of static concentrations, since the pollutant concentration fields 

reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical processes driven by assimilated 

meteorological observations. Therefore, we recommend using boundary conditions derived 

from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible.

Diagnostic testing which indicates a large impact on the model results from initial or 

boundary conditions may indicate that the domain is not large enough or the ramp-up period 

is too short. In either case, it should generally be assumed that initial and boundary 

conditions do not change in the future. The use of altered initial or boundary conditions in 

the future year should be documented and justified.

AQMP Discussion of the Initial Conditions

Initial Conditions53

Initial conditions in the air quality models define the spatial distribution of chemical species 

concentrations throughout the 3-dimensional modeling domain at the time at which the air 

quality model simulation begins. There are two limitations inherent in defining initial 

conditions. The first is that chemical species concentrations are only measured at discrete 

locations and, for some species, for discrete time periods. In particular, observed VOC data 

is sparse although some PAMS monitoring stations data are available. Therefore, observed 

concentrations must be extrapolated to estimate concentrations throughout the modeling 

domain. The second limitation is that observed chemical species concentrations may not 

represent chemical equilibrium, especially since not all important chemical species are 

measured explicitly.

To minimize the importance of initial conditions on air quality model simulation results, the 

simulation is frequently started at some time interval before the period of interest. 

Historically, this ―spin-up‖ time interval has ranged between 8 and 72 hours. For the 2007 

AQMP episodes, the modeling period starts early in the morning (typically 0000 PDT) of 

the day before the first day of interest for spinup. This allows a full diurnal cycle of sunlight 

for air quality model to reach chemical equilibrium. Since most of the modeling episodes 

encompass several days, the day with the worst air quality is typically well into the 

simulation.

AQMP Discussion of the Boundary and Top Air Quality Concentrations

The boundary concentrations can have a marked impact on RRFs for the South Coast Air 

Basin. In the Draft 2007 AQMP (released in October 2006) boundary conditions for the 

ozone simulations were extracted from the annual WRAP Regional Haze modeling 

conducted for the model year 2002. This modeling was conducted using CB4 chemical 

mechanism. There are some uncertainties on conversion from CB4 to SAPRC species. In 

 

53

 DRAFT Modeling Protocol , South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 48.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 43

addition, the converted SAPRC99 species profile did not reflect emissions inventory 

SAPRC99 species composition. The WRAP modeling results included occasional high 

levels of VOC and NOx that may not represent existing boundary concentrations.54

For the Final 2007 AQMP, the ozone simulations were conducted using the EPA default 

boundary concentration profile USEPA (1991)55. Uncertainties identified in the episodic 

diurnal profiles for the ozone simulations were sufficiently large enough to warrant a return 

to the boundary conditions used in the 2003 AQMP ozone attainment demonstration. This 

profile is commonly referred to as the ―EPA-Clean‖ boundary. The boundary conditions 

were adjusted to match the ROG SAPRC profile.

Table V-4-7 summarizes the boundary conditions used for all simulations. All 

concentrations were constant horizontally and, except for NO2, constant vertically. For each 

profile, the sum of VOC concentrations is approximately 22 ppbC. For each simulation, the 

domain top boundary concentrations were the same as the lateral boundaries, with the 

exception that the top ozone concentration was 60 ppb.

The initial concentrations for the all episodes were set using the air quality data from the

District and neighboring district‘s air monitoring stations.

TABLE V-4-7

Future Boundary, Top and Initial Air Quality Conditions

For the future year scenarios, the boundary, region top and ambient air quality 

concentrations were rolled back based on the percentage reduction in emissions from 2002 

base year to the projected emissions levels for future year of the simulation (2017, or 2023).

 

54 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V-4-18.

55 USEPA. 1991. Guideline For Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model. EPA Publication No. EPA-450/4-

91-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 44

The future year the top ozone concentrations were reduced to 45 ppb. The lateral boundary 

concentrations were not rolled back since the boundary concentrations used base year is 

considered to be clean.56

7. Meteorological Model 

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for meteorological modeling are discussed in the Guidance in Section 

16.0: How are the Meteorological Inputs Prepared for Air Quality Modeling? The 

recommendations are summarized below:

a. Meteorological Model Selection

A description of the methods used to generate the meteorological fields should be included 

in the modeling protocol. In cases in which standard meteorological modeling (e.g., MM5, 

RAMS, or WRF in a retrospective analysis mode) is not used, it is recommended that a 

detailed description of the technique that is used to generate the three-dimensional 

meteorological fields be shared with the appropriate EPA regional office(s) prior to 

conducting the air quality modeling analysis.57

b. Meteorological Model Domain

It is expected that most attainment demonstrations will cover large areas and use nested 

grids. The outermost grid should capture all upwind areas that can reasonably be expected to 

influence local concentrations of ozone, and/or PM2.5. In terms of selecting an appropriate 

meteorological modeling domain, one should extend the grid 3 to 6 cells beyond the 

domains of each air quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. For example, if 4 km 

grid cells are to be used in the fine portion of a nested regional air quality model, then the 

meteorological fields at this detail would need to extend 12-24 km beyond the bounds of the

4 km grid used for air quality predictions. In terms of grid resolution, EPA recommends that 

the dynamic meteorological models use the same grid resolution as desired for the air 

quality model applications. In some cases, however, this may not always be feasible. One 

possible reason for modeling with meteorology using a different grid resolution is in the 

case of unacceptable model performance from the meteorological model at the desired grid 

resolution. In other instances, the need for finer resolution may be emissions-driven more 

than meteorologically-driven and the costs do not warrant the generation of additional 

resolution in the meteorological data. In these specific situations it is recommended that the 

air quality model application use available results from meteorological models on the next 

coarser scale (i.e., 36 km for a desired 12 km estimate, 12 km for a desired 4 km estimate). 

The coarse grid meteorological fields can be mapped to the more finely resolved air quality 

modeling domain. 

 

56 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., pp. V-4-18, 20.

57 Guidance, p. 161
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 45

c. Data Assimilation

As noted above, the use of FDDA helps to keep the model predictions from widely 

diverging from what was actually observed to occur at a particular point in time/space. 

However, if used improperly, FDDA can significantly degrade overall model performance 

and introduce computational artifacts (Tesche and McNally, 2001)58. Inappropriately strong 

nudging coefficients can distort the magnitude of the physical terms in the underlying 

atmospheric thermodynamic equations and result in "patchwork" meteorological fields with 

strong gradients between near-site grid cells and the remainder of the grid. Additionally, if 

specific meteorological features are expected to be important for predicting the location and 

amount of pollution formed, based on an area's conceptual model, then the meteorological 

modeling should be set up to ensure that FDDA does not prevent the model from forming 

these features (e.g. nocturnal low-level wind jets). In general, analysis nudging strengths 

should be no greater than 1.0 x 10-4 for winds and temperatures and 1.0 x 10-5 for humidity. 

In the case of observation nudging (i.e., FDDA based on individual observations as opposed 

to analysis fields), it is recommended that the resultant meteorological fields be examined to 

ensure that the results over the entire domain are still consistent. Further, based on past 

experience, we recommend against using FDDA below the boundary layer for 

thermodynamic variables like temperature and humidity because of the potential for 

spurious convection. If the dynamic model is applied without FDDA, it is suggested that the 

simulation durations be shorter than 24 hours.

d. Meteorological Model Performance

Operational Evaluation: The operational evaluation results should focus on the values and 

distributions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to observed 

data. It is recommended that the observation - model matching be paired as closely as 

possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparisons of the key meteorological 

parameters105 will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, 

mean absolute error, mean absolute normalized error, root mean square error (systematic 

and unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over large domains 

and entire ozone seasons or years, it is recommended that the operational evaluation be 

broken down into individual segments such as geographic subregions and/or months/seasons 

to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the meteorological strengths and 

weaknesses.59

Discussion of meteorological modeling in the 2007 AQMP

The selection process for the meteorological model is discussed in the Model Protocol.60 

The models considered are listed in TABLE 3: Summary of Proposed 2007 AQMP Model Selection 

and Application.61

 

58 Tesche, T. W., and D. E. McNally, (2001), "Evaluation of the MM5, RAMS, and SAIMM Meteorological Model for 

the 6-11 September 1993 COAST and 25 August-1 September 2000 TexAQS2000 Ozone SIP Modeling Episodes", 

report prepared for the Business Coalition for Clean Air-Appeals Group, prepared by Alpine Geophysics, LLC, Ft. 

Wright, KY.

59 Guidance p. 163-167

60 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3.

61 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 13.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 46

2007 AQMP Meteorological Modeling Approach

The SCOS97 field study generated a dataset with a relatively high spatial density of 

meteorological observations. While this dataset suggests that an objective/diagnostic model 

could be adequate to develop the meteorological parameter fields required for air quality 

modeling of the August SCOS97 episode, there are large portions of the modeling domain—

such as over the ocean or the inland desert—where there are few observations. The approach 

for the 2007 AQMP modeling will be to use the MM5 prognostic model with a 5 km grid 

resolution. The meteorological boundary conditions for MM5 are generated using the output 

from a Global Climate Model (GCM) with a relatively coarse grid of 45 km. The MM5 

prognostic model uses more accurate and complete physics than the diagnostic models used 

previously. The MM5 has relatively good replication of meteorological features of the 

Basin, such as the coastal eddies, Santa Ana winds, recirculation, & strong inversions. The 

recent air quality models are designed to use inputs from the prognostic models, such as 

MM5, and the use of such a model is strongly encouraged by USEPA. In the past, the use of 

MM5 meteorological fields in air quality models has brought limited success in the 

prediction of peak ozone concentrations that result from extreme meteorological conditions 

and complex distribution of precursor emissions. However, the prediction of ozone with 

MM5 meteorological fields on most days is comparable to the results using other models. 

Since the air quality model will be employed in more of a relative sense for the 2007 

AQMP, with the use of relative reduction factors instead of peak concentration comparisons, 

the MM5 is an appropriate choice for the AQMP modeling. The premise is that the 

magnitude of RRF will reflect the ozone concentration resulting from the various 

meteorological episode classifications. With the use of the MM5 meteorological model, the 

AQMP modeling effort will move closer to the ―one atmosphere‖ air quality modeling 

perspective (i.e., ozone and fine particles simulated with the same model). The successful 

application of this prognostic model is critical for the development of multipollutant control 

strategies. Several MM5 initialization fields and data ingest options are also being explored 

for the 2007 AQMP modeling effort:62

• MM5 model initialized with the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) 12 

km ETA/North American Model (NAM);

• MM5 model with Aerospace Corp 3DVAR forecast fields;

• Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) community model using Aerospace

Corporation 3DVAR;

• MM5 model with NCEP database of upper air and surface observations and the

1degree by 1 degree Global Tropospheric Analysis

• Above method of MM5 with NCEP database and Global Tropospheric Analysis and fourdimensional data assimilation (4DDA) of AQMD station meteorological data (this method is 

more mass consistent, but may be difficult to capture localized wind impacts (e.g., transport 

to San Fernando Valley);

• Hybrid CALMET with MM5 as background field

 

62 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 24.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 47

Meteorological Modeling Domain

Nested domains of 15 km and 5 km are defined within MM5 to simulate meteorological 

fields for the fine grid scale of the modeling domain. The modeling domain for MM5 is 

defined in a Lambert-Conformal projection with two parallels to account for curvature of the 

Earth within the modeling domain over such a large region. Figure 1 shows the nested MM5 

domains. Figure 2 shows the finest scale (interior) MM5 domain, covering most of southern 

California. The vertical structure of MM5 is defined in a terrain-following, ―sigma‖ 

coordinate system based upon a normalized pressure index. The 30 vertical layers defined 

for MM5 to approximately 15,000 m above ground level (AGL) can be transformed to fit 

the requirements of any air quality model. The MM5 meteorological fields are converted 

from Lambert-Conformal projection to UTM coordinates for input into the air quality 

models.

FIGURE 1: Nested MM5 Domains63

 

63 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 3, p. 30
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 48

The horizontal grid resolution of the outermost domain is 45 km, for the middle domain is 15 km, 

and for the fine scale domain is 5 km.

Vertical Resolution

For the terrain-following MM5 model, the proposed vertical layer consists of 34 layers to a 

height of over 15,000 meters AGL,(as shown in Table 6, Vertical Structures for the CAMx 

Ozone and PM Simulations with Corresponding MM5 Meteorological Model Layers, 

below). For input into the air quality model, the 34 layers are reduced to match the vertical 

resolution of the ozone or particulate matter air quality.64 

 

64 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 33
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 49

Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses

Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses for the meteorological modeling have been 

performed are presented in Chapter 4 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, and presented 

below.

65

The MM5 data fields were extensively analyzed using the METSAT software. Figure V-4-5 

illustrates the extent of surface meteorological measurements in southern California, and the 

data used in the meteorological model evaluation were derived from a subset of the total 

archive. The summary performance statistics for the July 2005 episode are presented in 

Table V-4-8 and Figures V-5-6 through V-4-8. (The performance of MM5 for the July 2005 

episode was characteristic of that of the remaining five episodes).

66

TABLE V-4-8: METSTAT Statistical Evaluation of MM5-4DDA for the July 2005 Episode: 

AQMD Air Monitoring Stations67

Discussion

 

65 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., Attachment 3, p. 52.

66 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V-4-19.

67 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, p. V-4-20.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 50

EPA believes the meteorological model choice, domain, horizontal resolution and vertical 

resolution are appropriate for this application. 

8. Air Quality Model Performance

EPA Recommendations

EPA recommendations for evaluation of model performance for ozone are discussed in the 

Guidance in Chapter 18.0 What are the Procedures for Evaluating Model Performance and What is 

the Role of Diagnostic Analyses? in subsection 18.4.1: Ozone Operational Evaluation.

Statistics: It is recommended that, at a minimum, the following three statistical measures be 

calculated for hourly ozone and 8-hourly maxima ozone over the episode days in an 

attainment demonstration.

• Mean Normalized Bias (MNB): This performance statistic averages the model/observation 

residual, paired in time, normalized by observation, over all monitor times/locations. A 

value of zero would indicate that the model over predictions and model under predictions 

exactly cancel each other out. The calculation of this measure is shown in Equation 18.1. 

(18.1)

• Mean Normalized Gross Error (MNGE): This performance statistic averages the absolute 

value of the model/observation residual, paired in time, normalized by observation, over all 

monitor times/locations. A value of zero would indicate that the model exactly matches the 

observed values at all points in space/time. The calculation of this measure is shown in 

Equation 18.2.

(18.2)

• Average Peak Prediction Bias and Error: These are measures of model performance that 

assesses only the ability of the model to predict daily peak 1-hour and 8-hour ozone. They 

are calculated essentially the same as the mean normalized bias and error (Equation 18.1 and 

18.2), except that they only consider daily maxima data (predicted versus observed) at each 

monitoring location. In the attainment test, models are used to calculate relative response 

factors near monitoring sites by taking the ratio of the average 8-hour daily maximum 

concentrations calculated for the future and current cases. Thus, the model's ability to predict 

observed mean 8-hour daily maxima is an important indicator of model performance.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 51

Appendix A provides other statistics such as mean bias, mean error, mean fractional bias, 

mean fractional error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients, etc. which should also 

be 46 Past ozone modeling applications have used a minimum cutoff of either 40 ppb or 60 

ppb. Due to the interest in predicted ozone concentrations at or above the 8-hour standards

(85 ppb), the higher cut off (60 ppb) is recommended.

The use of a 0 ppb threshold can add valuable information about the ability of the model to 

simulate a wide range of conditions. Because of the tendency of the MNB and MNGE 

metrics to inflate the importance of biases at the lowest observed values (which are in the 

denominator), it is recommended that the alternate metrics of normalized mean bias (NMB) 

and normalized mean gross error (NMGE) be used as substitutes for evaluations with no 

minimum threshold. In certain instances, States/Tribes may also want to conduct 

performance evaluations using the ―near the monitor‖ grid cell arrays. A ―near the monitor‖ 

analysis may be useful when strong ozone gradients are observed, such as in the presence of 

a sea breeze or in strongly oxidant limited conditions. Furthermore, a ―near the monitor‖ 

performance evaluation is consistent with the RRF methodology calculated to the extent that 

they provide meaningful information. Wherever possible, these types of performance 

measures should also be calculated for ozone precursors and related gas-phase oxidants 

(NOx, NOy, CO, HNO3, H2O2, VOCs and VOC species, etc.) and ozone (and precursors) 

aloft.

Thresholds: EPA recommends that the three metrics above be calculated two ways: 1) for 

pairs in which the 1-hour or 8-hour observed concentrations are greater than 60 ppb, and 2) 

for all pairs (no threshold). This will help to focus the evaluation on the models ability to 

predict NAAQS-relevant ozone and minimize the effects of the normalization. In terms of 

pairing model predictions with monitored observations, EPA recommends that the grid cell 

value in which the monitor resides be used for the calculations. It would also be acceptable 

to consider bi-linear interpolation of model predictions to specific monitoring locations48. 

States/Tribes should recognize that, even in the case of perfect model performance, modelobserved residuals are unlikely to result in exact matches due to differences between the 

model predictions which are volume averages and the observations which are point values.

Averaging: The statistics should initially be calculated for individual days (averaged over 

all sites) and individual sites (averaged over all days). As appropriate, States/Tribes should 

then aggregate the raw statistical results into meaningful groups of subregions or subperiods. 

For example, examination of model performance within and near the non-attainment area(s) 

of interest may be more important than examination of performance in other parts of the 

modeling domain. Similarly, priority may be placed on examination of the days that are 

potentially used in the attainment test (base period days with 8-hour ozone > 70 or 85 ppb). 

That is not to say that model performance evaluations should ignore performance on lower 

ozone days or in areas outside of the nonattainment areas. Simply, additional factors should 

be considered when prioritizing more detailed analyses.

Plots/Graphics: Along with the statistical measures, EPA recommends that the following 

four sets of graphical displays be prepared and included as part of the performance analysis. 

• Time series plots of model and predicted hourly ozone for each monitoring location in the 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 52

nonattainment area, as well as key sites outside of the nonattainment area. These plots can 

indicate if there are particular times of day or days of the week when the model performs 

especially poorly. Figure 18.1 shows a sample time series plot. This graphic was developed 

using the air quality analysis module of the Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool (AMET) 

(Appel, 2005)68 , though other evaluation tools exist and can be used.69

Air Quality Model Performance in the AQMP

The air quality model performance is discussed in South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V, Chapter 

4. Base-year station statistics for each of the ozone episodes are presented in South Coast 2007 

AQMP, Appendix V, Attachment 2: Model Performance Statistics.

The SCAQMD evaluated the air quality model performance for several regional zones. The 

model performance for the San Fernando Valley, the Eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San 

Bernardino Valleys, and Los Angeles and Orange County areas (shown in the map in 

FIGURE V-4-9: Performance Evaluation Zones, below) are discussed below. The base-year 

performance evaluation for portions of Ventura County, the Mojave Desert and the 

Coachella Valley are also included in the AQMP. 

BASE-YEAR PERFOMANCE EVALUATION70

For the CAMx performance evaluation the modeling domain is separated into nine 

subregions or zones. Figure V-4-9 depicts the sub-regional zones used for base-year 

simulation performance. The different zones present unique air quality profiles. In previous 

ozone modeling attainment demonstrations using a smaller modeling domain, the number 

and size of the zones was different. Seven zones represented the Basin and portions of 

Ventura County, the Mojave Desert and the Coachella Valley. For the current analysis the 

Basin is represented by three of the zones: Zone 3 – the San Fernando Valley, Zone 4 – the 

Eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San Bernardino Valleys, and Zone 5 – the Los Angeles 

and Orange County emissions source areas. Of the four areas, Zone 4 represents the Basin 

maximum ozone concentrations and the primary downwind impact zone. As such, the 

priority in evaluating model performance is focus on Zone 4.

 

68 Appel, W., S. Howard, R. Gilliam, and S. Phillips, (2005), ―The Atmospheric Model Evaluation Tool: Air Quality 

Module‖, 4th Annual CMAS Models-3 Users' Conference, September 26-28, 2005, Chapel Hill, NC.

69

 Guidance pp. 197-200.

70

 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-24.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 53

FIGURE V-4-9: Performance Evaluation Zones71

 

71 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-24.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 54

The CAMx ozone simulations generally met the 1-hour average unpaired peak model 

performance goal in all three zones on most days. Nearly all stations in zone 4 met the 

unpaired peak and normalized error goals with performance in zones 3 and 5 lagging, 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 55

particularly for the May 2005 episode. In general, the bias tends to be negative indicating 

that model performance tended to under-predict ozone concentrations. Overall, the 8-hour 

average evaluation was slightly better.72

EPA Discussion of the Model Performance Analysis

Based on their analysis, South Coast concludes and EPA agrees that model performance is 

acceptable for this application.

9. Modeled Attainment Test for Ozone 

EPA Recommendations

a. Modeled Attainment Test

EPA‘s Recommendations are the modeled attainment test are discussed in the Guidance in Section 

2.1: What Is The Recommended Modeled Attainment Test for Ozone and PM2.5?-

An Overview. Ozone specific recommendations are presented in the Guidance in Section 4.2 How 

Do I Apply The Recommended 8-Hour Ozone Modeled Attainment Test?

A modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality model is used to simulate 

current and future air quality. If future estimates of ozone and/or PM2.5 concentrations are 

less than the NAAQS, then this element of the attainment test is satisfied11. Our 

recommended test is one in which model estimates are used in a ―relative‖ rather than 

―absolute‖ sense. That is, we take the ratio of the model‘s future to current (baseline) 

predictions at monitors. We call these ratios, relative response factors. Future ozone and/or 

PM2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled 

relative response factor at locations ―near‖ each monitor by the observation-based, monitorspecific, ―baseline‖ design value. The resulting predicted ―future concentrations‖ are 

compared to NAAQS.73

Ozone specific recommendations are presented in the Guidance in Section 4.2 How Do I Apply The 

Recommended 8-Hour Ozone Modeled Attainment Test?74

States/Tribes should apply the modeled attainment test at all monitors within the 

nonattainment area plus other nearby counties within the State34. Inputs described in Section 

3.1 are applied in Equation (3.1) to estimate a future design value at all monitor sites and 

grid cells for which the modeled attainment test is applicable. When determining compliance 

with the 8- hour ozone NAAQS, the standards is met if, over three consecutive years, the 

average 4th highest 8-hour daily maximum ozone concentration observed at each monitor is 

< 0.08 ppm (i.e., # 84 ppb using rounding conventions)35. Thus, if all resulting predicted 

future design values (DVF) are # 84 ppb, the test is passed. The modeled attainment test is 

applied using 3 steps.

 

72 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-25.

73 Guidance, p. 15.

74 Guidance, p. 40.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 56

Step 1. Compute baseline design values. Compute site-specific baseline design values

(DVBs) from observed data by using the average of the design value periods which include 

the baseline inventory year.

Step 2. Estimate relative response factors. Use air quality modeling results to estimate a 

relative response factor for each grid cell near a monitoring site.

(RRF)I = (mean 8-hr daily max)future/ (mean 8-hr daily max)baseline 

Step 3. Calculate future design values for all monitoring sites in the nonattainment area. 

Multiply the observed baseline design values obtained in Step 1 times the relative response 

factors obtained in Step 2.

Modeled Attainment Test in the South Coast 2007AQMP

The modeled attainment test for 8 hour ozone follows EPA‘s recommendations and is discussed in 

Chapter 4 of the South Coast 2007AQMP.

Ozone Air Quality Projections

CAMx simulations were conducted for the year base emission scenarios (2017 and

2023), and future year controlled scenarios (2017, and 2023). As discussed earlier, the ozone 

attainment demonstration relies on the use of site specific RRFs being applied to the 2002 

weighted design values. The RRFs are determined from the future year controlled and the 

2002 base year simulations.75

Future year 8-hour ozone attainment demonstrations are required for those sites with design 

values that exceed 84 ppb. As such, the current demonstrations are focused on 16 locations 

in the Basin. The initial screening for station days to be included in the attainment 

demonstration included the following criteria: (1) having an observed concentration 

equaling or exceeding 85 ppb and (2) a simulation predicted base year (1997, 2004 or 2005) 

concentration over 60 ppb. Additional criteria were added to the selection process as the 

simulations were evaluated.

A minimum of 5-episode days are recommended to determine the site specific RRF.

The evaluation requires that the model performance for the day is within specific

performance goals. The final criteria used to select an episode station day for the RRF

calculation included: (1) the base-year observed concentration lie with 25 percent of the

station design value, (2) the absolute prediction accuracy (predicted minus observed in the 

base- year) is within 25 percent and (3) that a minimum base-year observed concentration at 

each site used in the analysis 85 ppb or greater. A maximum of 19 episode days were 

evaluated for inclusion in the RRF calculation. If a site did not meet the 5-episode day 

threshold, the smaller reduction determined from either the average of the RRFs for all 

Basin sites or the 19 day average RRF from that site, regardless of model performance, was 

applied to estimate the future design value at that station.

 

75 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-46.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 57

Since the CAMx simulations are run on a 5 km grid, the maximum 8-hour average

concentration from the 49 grid cells representing the monitoring site are used to generate the 

simulated concentration at the monitor. The results of the attainment demonstration for 2023 

are presented in Table V-4-15.

b. Unmonitored Area Analysis

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s recommendations for an unmonitored analysis are discussed in the Guidance in Section 3.4: 

Estimating design values at unmonitored locations: what is an unmonitored area analysis and why is 

it needed? 

An additional review is necessary, particularly in nonattainment areas where the ozone or

PM2.5 monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required 

to report data to Air Quality System (AQS). This review is intended to ensure that a control 

strategy leads to reductions in ozone or PM2.5 at other locations which could have baseline 

(and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. The test is 

called an ―unmonitored area analysis‖. The purpose of the analysis is to use a combination 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 58

of model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if 

monitors were located there.

Section 3.4.2: Implementation of Gradient Adjusted Spatial Fields, outlines the basic steps in 

unmonitored area analysis. 

Gradient adjusted spatial fields are first created for the base year. Future year estimates can 

then be created by applying gridded RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. The basic 

steps are as follows: 

1) Interpolate base year ambient data to create a set of spatial fields.

2) Adjust the spatial fields using gridded model output gradients (base year values).

3) Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields.

4) Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAAQS in the future.

EPA has developed a software package called ―Modeled Attainment Test Software‖

(MATS) which will spatially interpolate data, adjust the spatial fields based on model output 

gradients and multiply the fields by model calculated RRFs (steps 1-3 above) (ABT, 2007). 

MATS also uses a version of VNA. States will be able to use the EPA-provided software or 

are free to develop alternative techniques that may be appropriate for their areas or 

situations.

Unmonitored analysis provided in the AQMP

The unmonitored area analysis is provided in the 2007 AQMP, including an outline of the process

the SCAQMD used to create the Gradient Adjusted Spatial Fields, and a graphical depiction of the 

results for the base year and future year (with and without control), shown in figures V-4-17,18,and 

19, below. 

The process that the SCAQMD used to generate the unmonitored area analysis follows the four 

steps outlined in the Guidance in Section 3.4.2: Implementation of Gradient Adjusted Spatial Fields. 

This process is discussed in Chapter 4 of the 2007 AQMP, Appendix V. 

Graphical Distribution

The spatial distribution of ozone design values for the 2002 base year is shown in Figure V4-17. The distribution was generated using GIS mapping of the station based ozone design 

values overlaid onto the modeling grid while applying a distance weighted interpolation 

scheme to expand the prediction. Future year ozone air quality projections for 2024 with and 

without implementation of all control measures are presented in Figures V-4-18 and V-4-19. 

The predicted ozone concentration will be significantly reduced in the future years in all 

parts of the Basin with the implementation of proposed control measures in the South Coast 

Air Basin.76

 

76

 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-47.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 59
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 60

As shown in Figure V-4-19, above, the model – predicted 2024 controlled 8-hour ozone design 

concentrations are at or below 84 ppb for all grid cells in the South Coast Air Basin.

EPA Discussion of the Modeling for the Modeled Attainment Test, including the unmonitored area 

analysis. 

The modeled attainment test results at the monitoring sites follow EPA recommendations and 

support that the South Coast Air Basin area will reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards by its attainment date of June 15, 2024. The unmonitored area analysis also ensures that 

the control strategy leads to reductions in ozone at other locations which could have baseline (and 

future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. 

10. Weight of Evidence

EPA Recommendations

EPA‘s Recommendations for the Weight of Evidence Analysis are outlined in Section 2.3 What 

Does A Recommended Supplemental Analysis/Weight Of Evidence Determination Consist Of? --

An Overview.

As we describe in more detail in Section 7, States/Tribes should always perform 

complementary analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data, and consider 

modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. Such analyses are instrumental 

in guiding the conduct of an air quality modeling application. Sometimes, the results of 

corroboratory analyses may be used in a weight of evidence determination to show that 

attainment is likely despite modeled results which may be inconclusive. The further the 

attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling contrary evidence produced by 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 61

corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that implied by the 

modeled attainment test results. If a conclusion differs from the outcome of the modeled 

test, then the need for subsequent review (several years hence) with more complete data 

bases is increased. If the test is failed by a wide margin (e.g., future design values outside 

the recommended range at an individual site or multiple sites/locations), it is far less likely 

that the more qualitative arguments made in a weight of evidence determination can be 

sufficiently convincing to conclude that the NAAQS will be attained. Table 2.1 contains 

guidelines for assessing when corroboratory analyses and/or weight of evidence 

determinations may be appropriate.77

EPA‘s recommendations for a weight of evidence determination are also discussed in the Guidance 

in Section 7.2: What Is Entailed In A Weight Of Evidence Determination? 

As discussed in Section 2, augmenting a modeled attainment test with supplemental analyses 

may yield a conclusion differing from that indicated by the modeled attainment test results 

alone. Past modeling analyses have shown that future design value uncertainties of 2-4 ppb 

for ozone, can result from use of alternate, yet equally appropriate, emissions inputs, 

chemical mechanisms, and meteorological inputs. Because of this uncertainty, EPA 

believes that weight of evidence determinations can be used in some cases to demonstrate 

attainment conclusions that differ from the conclusions of the model attainment test.

 

77

 Guidance, p. 17. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 62

Weight of Evidence Discussion in the AQMP

The AQMP included additional modeling-based sensitivity studies, discussed below, in the weight 

of evidence discussion.78

A set of CAMx sensitivity simulations were generated to test, model performance and 

evaluate alternate emissions scenarios. The stress tests conducted for the PM2.5 modeling 

analysis were also applied to the ozone simulations where emissions motor vehicle 

emissions were doubled, the model was run solely with biogenic emissions and the top 

ozone boundary condition was modified. The results of the simulations suggested a better fit 

of the data when VOC emissions were increase throughout the Basin bringing them in line 

with the ambient VOC/NOx ratio measured through the PAMS network. Reducing the top 

concentration (top boundary of the model simulation) resulted in a reduction of surface 

ozone ranging several ppb, but with no specific trend in time of day. Three ozone 

simulations were conducted: (Alternative 1) a control strategy of heavy VOC and heavy 

NOx reductions, (Alternative 2) Extensive VOC reductions and little NOx, and (Alternative 

3) the 2003 (previous) AQMP. The results of the simulations indicated that only the first 

scenario could result in attainment of the ozone standards. 

South Coast AQMP Air Quality Data

The air quality data from 2000 to 2010 for all ambient ozone monitoring sites in the South 

Coast Basin are presented in Figure IB-2 in Section I. B. 8-Hour Ozone Air Quality in the South 

Coast, of this document. The location of the monitoring sites is shown in Figure IB-3 – Ambient 

Ozone Monitoring Locations In the South Coast Air Basin. Since comprehensive monitoring began 

for ozone in the South Coast in the1960s, the area has seen a decline in ambient levels. 

11. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses

In our September 16, 2011 proposal, we proposed to find that the modeling analysis used for 

the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Plan meets the CAA section 172(c)(1) requirement that 

the plan ―shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards‖ at the 

time of its submittal in 2007, and that the modeling in the 2007 Plan provides an adequate basis for 

the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress, and attainment 

demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan. 

12. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on Air Quality Modeling and Other Analyses

The modeling used for the attainment demonstration was made available to the public for 

comment at the same time as the draft 2007 plan, and was subject to public hearing as part of final 

version of the Plan. 

The air quality modeling documentation in Appendix V of the 2007 AQMP contains all the 

elements required by EPA‘s modeling guidance. The modeling is based on the best and most 

 

78 South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix V., p. V-4-54.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 63

current information available at the time the plan was developed. EPA is finding that, taken in 

balance, the available modeling, evidence, analyses, monitoring data, and additional information 

support that the South Coast Air Basin area will reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards by its attainment date of June 15, 2024. The modeling shows significant reductions in 

ozone from the base period. The modeling predicts values 83 ppb or below at all of the twenty 

ozone monitoring stations. EPA has considered the most recent ambient data which indicates that 

the area is on a track that is consistent with achieving attainment of the 8-hour standards by 2024. 

Taking these factors together, we believe the modeling, including all the WOE measures, is 

consistent with attainment.

Based on our evaluation, discussed above, we find that the modeling analysis used for the 

attainment demonstration in the 2007 Plan meets the CAA section 172(c)(1) requirement that the 

plan ―shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards‖ at the time 

of its submittal in 2007, and that the modeling in the 2007 Plan provides an adequate basis for the 

reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations in 

the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan. 

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Finding on the Air Quality Modeling and Other 

Analyses for the Attainment Demonstration

We received no comments on our proposed finding that the modeling analysis used for the 

attainment demonstration meets the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and EPA modeling 

guidance. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the air quality modeling in the South 

Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 64

C. Reasonably Available Control Measure Demonstration and Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation 

of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such 

reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, 

at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the 

national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ The 8-hour ozone implementation rule requires that 

for each nonattainment area that is required to submit an attainment demonstration, the state must 

also submit concurrently a SIP revision demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. See 40 

CFR § 51.912(d).

EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in the General 

Preamble at 1356079 and a memorandum entitled ―Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control 

Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas,‖ John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz memo). 

In summary, EPA guidance provides that to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states 

should consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source categories in the 

nonattainment area to determine whether they are reasonably available for implementation in that 

area and whether they would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the area‘s 

attainment date by one year or more. See also “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 

Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas,‖ 44 FR 20372 

(April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards, ―Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe 

One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.‖

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also 

requires the implementation of reasonably available control technologies on all major sources of 

VOC and for each VOC source category for which EPA has issued Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG) documents. CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to 

major stationary sources of NOx. In extreme areas, a major source is a stationary source that emits 

or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOx per year. CAA sections 182(e) and (f).

Under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule, states are required to submit SIP revisions

meeting the RACT requirement of CAA sections 182(b) and 182(f) no later than 27 months after 

designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (September 15, 2006 for areas designated in April 2004) 

and to implement the required RACT measures no later than 30 months after the RACT SIP is due. 

See 40 CFR § 51.912(a).

 

79 The ―General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ published at 

57 FR 13498 on April 16, 1992, describes EPA‘s preliminary view on how we would interpret various SIP planning 

provisions in title I of the CAA as amended in 1990, including those planning provisions applicable to the 1-hour ozone 

standard. EPA continues to rely on certain guidance in the General Preamble to implement the 8-hour ozone standard 

under title I.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 65

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, on-road 

and non-road emissions source categories that meets the following five criteria: the control measure 

is (1) technologically feasible, (2) economically feasible, (3) does not cause ―substantial widespread 

and long-term adverse impacts‖, (4) is not ―absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable‖, and (5) 

collectively can advance the attainment date by at least one year. General Preamble at 13560.

Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which are not already either 

federally promulgated, part of the state‘s SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in 

enforceable form as part of a state‘s attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 20586, at 20614.

CAA Section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment plans to ―include enforceable emissions 

limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives 

such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such 

standard in such area by the applicable attainment date...‖ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). The 

ozone implementation rule requires that all control measures needed for attainment be implemented 

no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d). The attainment 

year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area‘s 

attainment date. 40 CFR 51.900 (g).

2. RACM Analysis in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan 

The South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy are parts of a series of air 

quality plans that the District and CARB have developed to provide for attainment of the federal air 

quality standards in the South Coast nonattainment area.80 These planning efforts have resulted in a 

comprehensive set of rules and programs that address the majority of emissions in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. 

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the revised 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB 

and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the South Coast metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) for the area, each undertook a process to identify and evaluate 

potential RACM that could contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8-hour ozone standards in 

the South Coast nonattainment area. We describe each agency‘s efforts below. 

 

80 These plans include the 2003 PM10 Plan (approved 70 FR 69081, November 10, 2005), the 2003 AQMP addressing 

the 1-hour ozone standard (partially approved at 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009), the 2003 State Strategy (portions that 

address the South Coast 1-hour ozone standard partially approved at 74 FR 10176, March 10, 2009) and the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted November 28, 2007). We proposed partial approval/partial disapproval of the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP portion that addresses the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS on July 14, 2011 (see 76 FR 41562), and finalized 

that action on November 9, 2011 (see 76 FR 69928). Our 2009 final action was challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, which published an opinion remanding certain aspects of EPA's action for further action consistent with the 

opinion. See Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011). The issues in dispute relate to the 

consequences of an EPA disapproval of a SIP submittal, the adequacy of EPA's evaluation of a particular control 

measure from the 2003 State Strategy, and the rationale for EPA's approval of the State's submittal as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)(TCMs to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT) in the South 

Coast. EPA has sought rehearing on some of the issues, and the mandate in this case has not yet been issued pending 

action by the court on the petition for rehearing.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 66

As required by CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) and 40 CFR § 51.912(a), the District 

developed a RACT SIP. The District adopted its RACT SIP on July 14, 2006 and CARB submitted 

it to EPA on January 31, 2007. We found that it met CAA requirements and fully approved it on 

December 18, 2008, effective January 20, 2009 (see 73 FR 76947). 

a. District’s RACM Analysis and Control Strategy

The District‘s RACM analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendix VI of 

the 2007 AQMP. The analysis focused on emissions from stationary and area sources that the 

District has jurisdiction to regulate. Since the 1970s, the SCAQMD has adopted stationary source 

control rules that have resulted in significant improvement in air quality in the South Coast Air 

Basin. In addition to economically and technically feasible control requirements, the District has 

adopted economic incentive approaches with programs such as the Regional Clean Air Incentives 

Market (RECLAIM) and the Carl Moyer program. While the District still relies on command and 

control regulations, the District‘s control strategies are now supplemented by market incentives and 

compliance flexibility approaches where appropriate. These regulations and strategies have yielded 

significant emissions reductions from sources under the District‘s jurisdiction. In developing the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District conducted a process to identify RACM for the South Coast 

which involved public meetings to solicit input, evaluation of EPA suggested RACM, and 

evaluation of other air agencies‘ regulations. The District conducted a five step process which is 

described in detail below.

Step 1 - AQMP Summit 

In June 2006, the District conducted a 2007 AQMP Summit. Over 125 attendees including 

experts from a variety of areas and the public provided input on new and innovative approaches to 

assist the District in attaining the ambient air quality standards for 8-hour ozone by 2024.

81

 In total, 

the District received about 200 control measure suggestions. In general, District staff was advised 

to 1) promote electrification; 2) focus on technology that improves energy efficiency and slows 

global warming; 3) influence consumer awareness and choice on low- or zero-VOC products; 4) 

incentivize low- or zero-emission control technologies; 5) promote the use of remote sensing to 

detect high polluting vehicles on roads and highways, and 6) improve public participation and 

multi-agency collaboration. 

Step 2 - U.S. EPA Suggested List of Control Measures 

EPA published a list of suggested potential RACT and RACM for PM2.5 in the PM2.5

Implementation Rule (see 72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007). As shown in Table 2 of Appendix VI, the 

District and CARB has included in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan control measures for each PM2.5 

RACT and RACM provided by EPA in the preamble to the PM2.5 Implementation Rule. Since the 

2007 AQMP addresses both the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, some of these measures may be 

more effective in addressing PM2.5 than ozone attainment.

 

81 While the applicable attainment date for extreme ozone areas is June 15, 2024, reductions must be implemented by 

2023 to achieve attainment by that date. See 40 CFR § 51.908. Therefore, we refer to 2023 as the attainment year and 

June 15, 2024 as the attainment date.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 67

Step 3 –Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) Updated by U.S. EPA in September 2006 

As required in CAA section 172(c)(1), the SIP for a nonattainment area must include RACM, 

including RACT for stationary sources. EPA defines RACT as: 

―the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility‖. 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979)

Section 182(b)(2) and (f) of the Clean Air Act provides that for each ozone nonattainment 

area classified as moderate or above, the State must submit a revision to the applicable SIP to 

implement RACT for each VOC source covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 

document and any other major stationary source of VOC or NOx located in the area. We fully 

approved the CAA section 182 RACT SIP for the South Coast 8-hour ozone nonattainment area on 

December 18, 2008. See 73 FR 76947. SCAQMD also looked at the updated CTGs issued by EPA 

for additional potential RACM measures. 

Step 4 - Other Districts’ Current Rules and Regulations 

The District reviewed all rules and regulations recently adopted or amended, from 2000 

to 2006, by San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, Ventura and San Francisco air districts, 

and compared its rules to analogous requirements in these other California districts. District

staff selected these districts for comparison purposes based on their ozone nonattainment 

classifications. 

Table 3 in Appendix VI of the AQMP contains a brief description of the 82 source-specific 

rules that staff analyzed and a summary of more stringent requirements adopted by other districts. 

In addition, Table 3 also includes a description of the control measures adopted by other agencies 

for their own 8-hour ozone plans, and information on advanced technologies or U.S. EPA consent 

decrees that District staff is aware of that may result in additional emission reductions. In general, 

the District‘s current rules and regulations are equivalent to or more stringent than those developed 

by other California air districts, with a few exceptions shown in Table 3 where improvements are 

possible. Therefore, the District developed several control measures to address these areas, such as 

Control Measure MCS-01 – Facility Modernization, MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible 

Measures, and CMB-02 – Reduction of Emissions in the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 

(RECLAIM). Table 3 in Appendix VI identifies these control measures. In general, the areas 

identified for potential improvements are to explore the feasibility of lowering emission limits and 

increasing level of control in order to promote cleaner technologies, lowering VOC content of 

coatings/solvents, establishing standards and test methods for generic control equipment, lowering 

release or leak thresholds, encouraging continuous wireless monitoring, improving leak detection, 

repair, inspection and maintenance, and adding best management practices. 

With respect to technological and economic feasibility, the District assumed that 

technologies and measures which are available and cost-effective to implement in other 

air districts in California, would be available and cost-effective for implementation in the South 

Coast Basin in a timely manner. Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) is 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 68

reevaluated every three years. The District refines emission inventory, emission reduction, and 

cost- effectiveness estimates as well as health benefits on an ongoing basis, especially during the 

rule development process. In addition, the District commits to monitor rule development in other 

air districts, and will conduct further study and reevaluate the feasibility of revising the 

requirements in existing rules if necessary. Instead of amending existing rules, new rules may be 

adopted to implement the control measures described in the South Coast 2007 AQMP in a more 

effective manner. Prioritization and schedules for adoption and implementation are discussed in 

Chapter 7 of the AQMP. 

Step 5 - Additional Studies and Analyses 

In addition to the above analyses, the District and SCAG have taken the following actions to 

meet the RACM requirements of the CAA:

• Evaluation of control measures developed by other air districts for their air quality 

management plans as described in Appendix IV-A. 

• Analysis of the specific costs of each SCAQMD stationary source and mobile source control 

measure, if available, as provided in Appendix IV-A and B. 

• Development of a schedule for implementing the control measures, as discussed in Chapter 

7 of the AQMP, which demonstrates that the District will implement the control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable considering resources and budgets. 

• Completion of a SCAQMD 8-Hour Ozone RACT SIP Demonstration project which the 

District submitted to EPA in June 2006 for comment. The District concluded that 1) All 

SCAQMD rules to implement the 1-hour ozone SIP fulfill RACT for the 8-hour ozone SIP, 

and 2) all CTG sources and all major non-CTG sources in the Basin are subject to SIPapproved rules satisfying RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. EPA fully 

approved the South Coast RACT SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards on December 18, 

2008 at 73 FR 76947.

District’s Conclusion Regarding RACM

Following is the summary of the District‘s findings: 

The District evaluated all potentially reasonable control measures that were available for 

implementation in the area and inclusion in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. 

The control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP included all RACM suggested by the 

public and experts.

The control measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP included all RACT and RACM 

recommended by EPA in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule.

In general the District‘s rules and regulations are equivalent to or more stringent 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 69

than other California districts‘ rules and regulations and the control measures proposed in 

their respective SIPs. In several areas identified in Table 3 of Appendix VI of the AQMP, the 

existing source-specific rules may be amended to lower the emissions standards, promote 

cleaner technologies, add additional best management practices, and improve enforceability. 

District staff will monitor the rule development processes of other air districts, explore all 

feasible control options, and conduct further analyses to refine the emission inventory, 

emission reductions associated with specific rules, and cost-effectiveness analysis. 

Based on its RACM analysis for stationary and area sources under its jurisdiction, the District 

scheduled 15 new or revised stationary and area source control measures for development 

and adoption, including measures at least as stringent as those identified in other California

districts‘ SIPs and several innovative measures. For example, the District developed 

innovative stationary source control measures, such as MCS-01 – Facility Modernization, 

CTS-02 - Clean Coating Certification, MCS-07 – Application of All Feasible Measures, 

and FLX-01 – Economic Incentive Programs, that were not included in other California 

districts‘ SIPs. 

As to the few remaining control measures that District staff rejected from the RACM analysis, 

the District determined that these measures would not advance the attainment date or 

contribute to RFP due to the insignificant or non-quantifiable amount of emission 

reductions that they would generate. 

The RACM demonstration for transportation control measures (TCMs) is included in Appendix IVC. The District is treating all mobile source control measures provided by CARB to SCAQMD as 

RACM. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix VI, page VI-7.

Since the submittal of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District has adopted and submitted to 

EPA 13 of the measures scheduled for development and adoption to meet its commitments and to 

provide for the implementation of RACM.

Table C-1 summarizes the submittal and approval status of District rules. Table C-2 

provides emissions reduction estimates for those rules.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 70

Table C-1. Submittal and Approval Status of District Rules in the South Coast 

2007 AQMP for Attainment of the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standards

Rule 445 - Woodburning fireplaces and 

wood stoves

SIP- approved 74 FR 27716, 6/11/09

Rule 461 – Gasoline transfer and 

dispensing

SIP-approved 71 FR 18216, 4/11/06

Rule 1110.2 – Liquid and gaseous fuels 

– stationary ICEs

SIP-approved 74 FR 18995, 4/27/09

Rule 1111 - Further NOx reductions 

from space heaters

SIP-approved 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10

Rule 1143 - Consumer Paint Thinners 

and Multi-Purpose Solvents

SIP-approved 76 FR 70888, 11/16/11

Rule 1144 - Vanishing oils and rust 

inhibitors

SIP-approved 76 FR 70888, 11/16/11

Rule 1145 – Plastic, Rubber, Leather 

and Glass Coatings

SIP-approved 75 FR 40726, 07/14/10

Rule 1147 – NOx reductions from 

miscellaneous sources

SIP-approved 75 FR 46845, 08/04/10

Rule 1149- Storage Tank and Pipeline 

Cleaning and Degassing

SIP- approved 74 FR 67821, 12/21/09
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 71

Table C-2. Status of District’s Short and Intermediate Term Control Measures in the South Coast 2007 

AQMP Attainment Demonstration, as revised in 2011 (tons per summer day)

Control 

measure

Rule No. Title Emissions Reduction Commitment 

in South Coast 2007 AQMP, as 

revised in 2011

Emissions Reductions Achieveda

NOx VOC NOx VOC

BCM-03 445 Woodburning fireplaces and 

woodstoves

n/a n/a 0.1 tpd 0.7 tpd

CTS-01 1144

Metalworking fluids and 

direct-contact lubricants

n/a 2.0 tpd n/a 4.2 tpd

CTS-03b

Consumer Products 

Certification and Emissions 

Reductions from the Use of 

Consumer Products at Inst. and 

Comm‘l Facilities

n/a n/a n/a n/a

CTS-04 1143 Consumer Paint Thinners and 

Multi-Purpose Solvents n/a n/a n/a 10.1 tpd

CMB-01 1147 NOx reductions from 

miscellaneous sources

4.1 tpd 4.1 tpd

FUG - 02 461 Gasoline transfer and 

dispensing

n/a 4.0 tpd n/a

FUG - 04 1149

Storage Tank and Pipeline 

Cleaning and Degassing n/a n/a n/a 0.04 tpd

CMB-03 1111

Further NOx reductions from 

space heaters 1.1 tpd n/a 3.0 tpd n/a

MCS-01 1110.2 Liquid and gaseous fuels –

stationary ICEs 2.2 tpd 9.2 tpd 0.54 tpd 0.3 tpd
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 72

Measures not yet adopted, not yet acted on by EPA, or not fully approved by EPA

NOx VOC

MCS-01 1146

NOx from industrial, 

institutional, & commercial 

boilers, steam generators, and 

process heaters

Emissions reductions not currently 

creditable; EPA proposed limited 

approval/limited disapproval 

published July 8, 2011, see 76 FR 

40303

1146.1

NOx from small ind, inst, & 

comm‘l boilers, steam gens, 

and proc. htrs

Emissions reductions not currently 

creditable; EPA proposed limited 

approval/limited disapproval 

published July 8, 2011, see 76 FR

40303

EGM-01 2301

Emissions reductions from 

new or redevelopment projects 0.8 tpd 0.5 tpd Scheduled for adoption in 2012.

MCS-05 1127 Livestock waste n/a 0.6 tpd EPA has not yet acted on.

FLX-02 1123 Refinery pilot program n/a 1.6 tpd Scheduled for adoption in 2012.

MOB-05 AB923 LDV high emitter 

program

0.4 tpd 0.7 tpd No rule associated with this 

measure.

MOB-06 AB923 MDV high emitter 

program

0.6 tpd 0.6 tpd No rule associated with this 

measure.

SIP Commitments and Currently Creditable Reductionsc

SIP commitment- NOx 9.2 tpd NOx SIP-creditable reductions - NOx 7.7 tpd

SIP commitment - VOC 19.3 tpd VOC SIP-creditable reductions - VOC 15.3 tpd

a

From SCAQMD‘s 2011 ―Revisions to PM2.5 and Ozone State Implementation Plan for South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley,‖ which was included as 

Appendix F in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report, Tables 2 and 3, and District rule evaluation forms. Some emissions reduction commitments were revised from the 

information originally provided in the South Coast 2007 AQMP.

b Adopted by CARB in November 2010. 

c EPA can only credit District rules that have been adopted, submitted to EPA, and approved for credit in the SIP.

n/a = not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 73

b. Local Jurisdiction’s RACM Demonstration

The local jurisdiction‘s RACM demonstration was conducted by the Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) , the MPO for the Los Angeles region. This analysis, 

which focused on transportation control measures (TCMs), and its results are described in 

Appendix IV-C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. TCMs are generally measures designed to 

reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) or traffic congestion. 

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the RACM demonstration for TCMs is included in 

Appendix IV-C, The TCMs in the South Coast 2007 AQMP are derived from TCM projects in 

the 2006 SCAG Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This evaluation, 

described beginning on page 49 of Appendix IV-C of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, resulted in 

extensive local government commitments to implement programs to reduce auto travel and 

improve traffic flow. South Coast 2007 AQMP page 6-6 and Appendix IV-C. SCAG also 

provided reasoned justifications for any measures that it did not adopt. Attachment A to 

Appendix IV-C contains an extensive list of TCMs in process and newly programmed TCMs. 

c. CARB’s RACM Demonstration and Control Strategy

CARB describes its proposed strategy to reduce emissions from sources within its 

jurisdiction – on- and off-road engines and vehicles, fuels, and consumer products - in Chapter 3 

of the 2007 State Strategy. CARB has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards for 

most categories of on- and off-road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances to a waiver 

by EPA under CAA section 209.

CARB developed its proposed statewide strategy after an extensive public consultation 

process to identify potential SIP measures. It included a SIP Symposium in October 2006 and a 

workshop in November 2006 to discuss development of potential control concepts for meeting 

the federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards.82 CARB made a draft of the 2007 State Strategy 

available for public review in April 2007 and conducted a series of public workshops on the 

draft. On April 26, 2007, CARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that 

incorporated changes based on further staff analysis and public comments. CARB Resolution 07-

28, p. 3.

From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new defined 

measures to address California‘s ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment problem. 2009 State Strategy 

Update, p. 23 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures focus on 

cleaning up the in-use (legacy) mobile source fleet as well as increasing the stringency of 

emission standards for a number of engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle 

fuels and consumer products. Many if not most of these measures have been adopted for the first 

time anywhere in the nation. They build on CARB‘s already comprehensive program to address 

emissions of NOx and VOC from all types of mobile sources through both regulations and 

 

82 More information on this public process including presentations from the workshops and symposium that 

preceded the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at 

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 74

incentive programs, as well as from fuels and consumer products. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 

38. Table C-3 lists these 15 CARB measures and includes one additional measure each from the 

California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) and the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (DPR). Table C-4 provides the list of these measures and their adoption and 

implementation schedules as updated in CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision.

Table C-3. 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Expected Implementation

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007-2008 by 2010

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (with BAR) 2008-2014 2008-2014

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline 

Program 2007 Phase in starting 2010

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 2010-2015

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean 

Technologies 2007-2008 Phase in starting 2010

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2007

Engines: 2009

Fuel: 2007-2010

Engines: Phase in 

starting 2010

Port Truck Modernization 2007-2008 2008-2020

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner LineHaul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007-2008 Starting in 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 2009-2018

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2007 Phase in starting 2008

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment 2009 Phase in starting 2014

New Emissions Standards for Recreational 

Boats 2009-2010 2012-2013

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle 

Emissions Standards By 2010 2012-2015

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above 

Ground Storage Tanks 2007 Phase in starting 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 2010-2012

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2007-2008 

& 2010-2012

By 2010

By 2012-2014

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 2008 2008

Source: 2009 State Strategy Update, p. 23
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 75

Table C-4. 2007 State Strategy Measures Schedule for Consideration, 

as updated in July 2011

State Measure Expected Adoption Year Implementation Year

Smog Check Improvements12007-2009 2008-2010; 2013

Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 

118) 2007 2009

Modification to Reformulated 

Gasoline Program 2007 2010

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks 2007, 2008, 2010 2011-2015

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and 

Clean Technologies 2007-2008 2010

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and 

Fuels2

Fuel: 2008-2011

Engines: 2008 Fuel: 2009-2015

Engines: 2011

Port Truck Modernization 2007-2008, 2010 2008-2020

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner 

Line-Haul Locomotives3 2008 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 2007, 2010 2009-2018

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road

Equipment4 2007, 2010 2009

New Emissions Standards for 

Recreational Boats5 See notes See notes

Expanded Off-Road Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions Standards5 See notes See notes

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for 

Above Ground Storage Tanks 2008 2009-2016

Additional Evaporative Emissions 

Standards5

2009 2010-2012

See notes See notes

Consumer Products Program (I & II)

2008 2010

2009 2013-2014

2011 2014

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

rules 2008, 2009 2009

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix D, Table B-1.

1

In 2010, the State Legislature improved the effectiveness of the Smog Check program (AB 2289), requiring the 

Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for 

inspection and certification. This new program will be effective in 2013.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 76

2

In July 2008, ARB adopted a regulation that applies to ships operating within 24 nautical miles (nm) of the 

California coastline and visiting California ports. These vessels must use less polluting marine distillate fuel for their 

main engines, auxiliary engines, and boilers instead of heavy fuel oil. The first phase of cleaner fuel for ship main 

engines took effect in 2009, with a second phase currently scheduled for 2012. By 2015, the International Maritime 

Organization‘s fuel sulfur requirements for the North American Emissions Control Area will match CARB‘s phase 2 

standards and extend out to 200 miles from the California coastline.

3

In 2008, ARB awarded Prop 1B funds to upgrade line-haul locomotive engines not already accounted for by 

enforceable agreements with the railroads. Those cleaner line-hauls will being operation in 2012.

4

 Reductions begin in 2014.

5 Expected action in 2013, with implementation schedules to be determined in rulemaking process.

Table C-5 provides CARB‘s estimate of the emissions reductions associated with each 

measure. Table C-6 provides EPA‘s estimate of the creditable emissions reductions associated 

with State and District measures.

Table C-5. Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures 

in the Revised 2007 State Strategy for the South Coast 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area (tons per summer day, 2023)

Measure NOx VOC

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 1.2 5.3

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks 27.4 1.3

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (> 25 hp) 3.2 0.3

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & Clean Tech. 28.4 0.7

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel - Main Engines 44.5 0.8

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 0 0

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 10.0 0.4

Cargo Handling Equipment 0 0

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 0 0

Expanded Off-Road Rec. Vehicle Emissions Standards 0

Consumer products n/a 7.1

All other local, state, and federal measures 10.4 15.3

Totals: 125 31.3

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 1. Only defined measures with 

VOC and/or NOx reductions in the South Coast are shown here. n/a = not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 77

Table C-6. Creditable Reductions from Defined Measures in the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy for the South Coast 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

(tons per summer day, 2023)

State Measure NOx VOC Status

Smog Check Improvements (BAR)a 1.2 5.3 Elements approved, see 75 

FR 38023, 7/1/2010

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks 27.4 1.3 Proposed for Approval; see 

76 FR 40562, 7/11/2011

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline 

program

0 0 Approved, see 75 FR 26653, 

5/12/2010

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (> 25 

hp) 3.2 0.3 Waiver measure

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold Ironing & 

Clean Tech. 28.4 0.7 Waiver granted; 76 FR 

77515, December 13, 2011.

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel -

Main Engines

44.5 0.8

Proposed for approval 76 FR 

40652, 7/11/2011

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives 0 0

Prop 1B funds awarded to 

upgrade line-haul locomotive 

engines not already accounted 

for by enforceable agreements 

with the railroads. Those 

cleaner line-hauls will begin 

operation by 2012.

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 10.0 0.4Waiver authorized, 76 FR 

77521, December 13, 2011.

Consumer Products 0 7.1

74 FR 57074, 11/4/09; 76 FR 

27613, 5/12/11; signed 

approval 12/7/11.

All other local, state, and federal measures 7.7 15.3 See Table C-2 in this TSD

Totals: 122.4 31.3

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Addendum, and CARB. Only defined measures with VOC and/or NOx,

reductions in the South Coast are shown here.

c See Footnote 1 to Table C-4.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 78

d. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision

1. Requirements of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme, the CAA recognizes that these areas 

may have to rely to a certain extent on new or evolving technologies to achieve the emissions 

reductions needed to demonstrate attainment, given the relatively long time between developing 

the initial plan and the degree of emissions reductions needed to attain the standards. These 

measures would include those that may anticipate future technological developments or future 

improvements in existing technology as well as those that may require complex analyses and 

decision making and coordination among a number of government agencies. 

CAA section 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve provisions in an extreme area 

nonattainment area plan which anticipate development of new control technologies, or 

improvement of existing control technologies and to approve an attainment demonstration based 

on these provisions. However, before EPA can approve these provisions and the attainment 

demonstration, the state must demonstrate to the ―satisfaction of the Administrator‖ that 

1. the provisions are not necessary to achieve the incremental reductions required during 

the first 10 years after November 15, 1990; 83 and

2. the State has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency 

measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies do not achieve the 

planned reductions.

Under section 182(e)(5), the State must submit its contingency measures no later than 3 

years before the original long-term measure was to have been implemented, and they must be 

adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other approved plan 

provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions and to attain the ozone standards by the 

applicable dates. If the EPA determines that the extreme area has failed to achieve an emissions 

reductions requirement set forth in section 182 (b)(1) or (c)(2) and that such failure is due in 

whole or part to an inability to fully implement provisions (related to new technologies) 

described in section 182(e) (1 through 4) and approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5), the 

Administrator will require the State to implement the contingency measures to the extent 

necessary to ensure compliance with the emissions reduction requirements of section 182 (b)(1) 

and (c)(2). EPA will set a schedule for implementing contingency measures upon making a 

finding of failure to meet a milestone.

The General Preamble further provides that the new technology measures contemplated 

by section 182(e)(5) may include those that anticipate future technological developments as well 

as those that require complex analyses, decision making and coordination among a number of 

government agencies. See General Preamble at 13524. An attainment demonstration that relies 

on long-term new technology measures under section 182(e)(5) must identify any such measures 

and contain a schedule outlining the steps leading to final development and adoption of the 

measures. Id. The General Preamble also provides that EPA will set a schedule for implementing 

 

83 Consistent with provisions in our implementation regulations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart X, we interpret this 10-year timeframe to run from the effective date of designation for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 79

contingency measures upon making a finding of failure to meet a milestone, i.e., to achieve the 

periodic emissions reductions required by CAA sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) or to attain by the 

applicable dates. Id.

2. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan

The State Strategy and South Coast AQMP rely on commitments to achieve additional 

reductions of 241 tpd NOx and 40 tpd VOC by 2023 from new and improved technologies 

consistent with the requirements of section 182(e)(5). See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 

20. The new technology provisions (also called ―long-term measures‖) described in the revised 

2007 State Strategy and South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP are not relied on to demonstrate RFP; 

they are relied on solely for attainment by June 15, 2024. They are accompanied by an 

enforceable commitment by the State to adopt and submit contingency measures no later than 3 

years before implementation, as required by CAA section 182(e)(5). See CARB Board 

Resolution 11-22, July 21, 2011, p. 4. We provide our analysis of these new technology 

provisions below. 

To determine if existing technologies could provide sufficient emissions reductions for 

attainment, CARB analyzed whether current and foreseeable mobile source NOx controls, if 

fully deployed, would provide sufficient emissions reductions for attainment in the South Coast 

by 2020. CARB included in this analysis the phasing in of the cleanest new technology standards 

from 2007-2017 that CARB and U.S. EPA have already adopted for diesel engines: 0.2 g/bhp-hr 

on-road truck standards in 2010, full offroad Tier 4 standards in 2014, and the recent U.S. EPAproposed low-NOx standards for locomotive engines starting in 2017. The results are 

summarized on page 54 of the 2007 State Strategy. For the South Coast, the totals of remaining 

emissions after full clean-up of the legacy diesel fleets were still greater than the NOx carrying 

capacity for the area. This fiscally-unconstrained scenario shows that in 2020, the South Coast 

would still be approximately 133 tpd above its attainment target of 114 tpd of NOx. 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 54.

CARB and the California districts have a longstanding history of successfully adopting 

and implementing technology-advancing regulations and innovative control measures. They have 

worked closely with research scientists and the regulated industry to craft regulations that are 

stringent enough to compel technology development, yet flexible enough to encourage industry 

innovations. CARB has provided a list of potential long-term control measures which include 

reduced deterioration of emission control equipment in passenger vehicles, tighter engine 

emission standards, cleaner ground support equipment at airports, and prioritizing federal 

transportation funding to support air quality goals. See pp. 56-57 of the 2007 State Strategy. 

CARB has also provided updates to its list of potential long-term measures in both the 

2009 State Strategy update and the 2011 ozone SIP revision. See 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report, pp. 25-27 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, pp. A-8 to A-12. In the 2011 

Ozone SIP Revision, CARB reasserts its commitment to ensure that measures are identified no 

later than 2020 and the emissions reductions are achieved by 2023. 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, 

Appendix A, p. A-8. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 80

To implement the long-term strategy, CARB has committed to a process that will help 

ensure that the long-term measures are adopted and that reductions are achieved by the beginning 

of the last full ozone season before the attainment date. CARB is coordinating a government, 

private and public effort to establish emission goals for critical mobile and stationary emission 

source categories. The effort includes periodic assessment of technology advancement 

opportunities and updates to the Board and the public regarding new emission control 

opportunities and progress in achieving the long-term measure reductions. CARB‘s commitment 

for implementing the long-term strategy also includes (a) sharing the results of its efforts to 

identify emerging emissions reduction opportunities, promising technologies, and the progress 

made in developing long-term emission reduction measures with the public through periodic 

briefings to the Board, workshops, conferences, symposia, website postings and other means, (b) 

working to secure resources in the future for continuing research and development of new 

technologies, and (c) development of schedules for moving from control technology research to 

implementation. Id.

An initial step in the long-term strategy was the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the U.S. EPA, CARB and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Districts 

to commit to developing and deployment of new sustainable technologies to accelerate progress 

in meeting air quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to improve air quality by aligning agency 

research resources, where possible and appropriate, to evaluate innovative technologies that have 

the potential to reduce emissions, and to develop and assess new monitoring equipment to better 

measure mobile and stationary source emissions. These agencies also intend to coordinate 

research efforts with other public and private stakeholders, including other federal departments 

and agencies and other local and state entities with the goal of using the resources and capacities 

of a wide sector of government and the business community in projects to develop, demonstrate, 

and assess new technologies for clean air.

The agencies involved in the MOA have also established a Clean Air Technology 

Working Group to help bring together the necessary participants (e.g., scientists, engineers, 

analysts and agency specialists) to achieve the goals of the MOA. 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report, pp. 25-27. For the South Coast, the focus has been on demonstrating new technologies 

for goods movement activities at a large intermodal rail yard in the City of San Bernardino, and 

on the more than 1000 stationary and area emission sources in the City of San Bernardino (e.g., 

auto repair shops, transportation facilities, concrete and aggregate operations, military 

installations, printing and coating operations, and manufacturing facilities). See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision, Appendix A, p. A-9. 

Other State programs that may achieve emissions reductions to help meet CARB‘s 

182(e)(5) commitment include: 

potential co-benefits from California‘s climate change programs where State 

legislation (Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)) 

aims to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) in 2020 to 1990 levels or by about 30%. 

Reducing emissions from combustion sources is at the core of California‘s AB32 

Scoping Plan and is also central to meeting the federal ozone standards. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 81

Regulations adopted as part of AB32 will provide emissions reductions that will 

be incorporated into future air quality plans for ozone and fine particles. 

California‘s Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) is an incentive program 

administered by CARB to fund clean vehicle and equipment projects, research on 

biofuels production, and the air quality impact of alternative fuels, as well as 

workforce training. The program supports the deployment of hybrid and zeroemission vehicles and other advanced technologies today in order to achieve the 

large-scale reductions needed in the future. California‘s large funding 

commitment for hybrid truck technology provides emissions benefits today as 

well as likely enabling heavy-duty hybrid trucks to become commonplace in the 

near future through encouraging production economies of scale. AQIP is also 

providing vehicle purchaser incentives for zero emission passenger vehicles, plugin hybrid cars, electric lawnmowers, and demonstration projects for cleaner 

marine and locomotive engines.

California‘s annual research program, which identifies projects and provides 

funding to help provide timely scientific and technical information needed for 

State and local air quality control programs. Specifically, this program supports 

CARB‘s mission to understand air pollution health effects and exposures, develop 

and implement strategies to reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption, and 

support the development of technologies and non-technological strategies that 

address multiple air quality priorities.

In addition to its commitment to the process discussed above, CARB has committed to 

submit an 8-hour ozone SIP revision by 2020 that will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023 

emission reduction target based on updated science and (2) identify additional strategies and 

implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by the beginning of the 2023 

ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A-8. 

CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision updates and reaffirms both the ―long-term strategy 

commitment to identify and implement advanced technologies to reduce ozone-forming 

emissions in the State Strategy‖ and the State‘s enforceable commitment ―to develop, adopt, and 

submit contingency measures by 2020 if advanced technology measures do not achieve planned 

reductions.‖ See CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 2011. Finally, CARB has committed to meet 

annually with EPA to discuss strategies to maximize the clean air benefits of emerging advanced 

technologies and to provide annual summaries of strategies and activities. 84

The SCAQMD has also provided a list of potential advanced control technologies and 

innovative approaches that could achieve the long-term reductions (See South Coast 2007 

AQMP, pp. 4-54 to 4-71). SCAQMD also has an active Technology Advancement Office. The 

South Coast technology advancement efforts include, though are not limited to: Heavy-Duty 

Class 8 Electric Trucks, Vehicle Maintenance, Commercial Green Cleaners, Fireplace Gas Log 

 

84 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, dated August 29, 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 82

Buy-down, Residential Yard Equipment and Commercial Leaf Blower Exchange, Boiler and 

Process Heater Efficiency Upgrades, Architectural Coating Rebates, and zero-emission electric 

delivery trucks.

The South Coast 2007 AQMP includes a discussion of CAA section 182(e)(5) new 

technologies in Chapter 4, ―AQMP Control Strategy‖, starting on page 4-54. Because the 

modeling in the South Coast 2007 AQMP projects an attainment date of 2023, and by 2023, 

emissions will be dominated by mobile sources, the District has determined that a NOx-heavy 

control strategy supplemented with additional VOC reductions will be the most effective ozone 

strategy for the region. Long-term reductions are based on measures that anticipate the 

development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control techniques for mobile 

sources. 

The amount of reductions needed from this provision of the CAA is determined by the 

difference between the final attainment target (114 tpd of NOx and 420 tpd of VOC) and the 

emissions remaining after the implementation of short-term and mid-term control measures. The 

difference is 241 tpd of NOx and 40 tpd of VOC in the South Coast 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. 

Table C-7 provides some of the approaches that the District is considering to meet the 

requirements of CAA Section 182(e)(5). The measures in Table C-7 fall into four broad 

categories:

Further reductions from on-road mobile sources,

Further reductions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles,

Further reductions from off-road mobile sources, and

Further reductions from consumer products

Table C-7. Possible Approaches for Long-Term Control Measures in 

the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Light Duty Vehicles

Extensive retirement of high-emitting vehicles and accelerated 

penetration of PZEVs and ZEVs

On-Road Heavy Duty 

Vehicles 

Expanded modernization and retrofit of heavy-duty trucks and 

buses

Expanded inspection and maintenance program

Advanced near-zero and zero-emitting cargo transportation 

technologies

Off-Road Vehicles Expanded modernization and retrofit of off-road equipment
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 83

Table C-7. Possible Approaches for Long-Term Control Measures in 

the South Coast 2007 AQMP

Marine Vessels

More stringent emissions standards and programs for new and 

existing ocean-going vessels and harbor craft

Locomotives

Advanced near-zero and zero-emitting cargo transportation 

technologies

Pleasure Craft Accelerated replacement and retrofit of high-emitting engines

Aircraft

More stringent emissions standards for jet aircraft (engine 

standards, clean fuels, retrofit controls); Airport Bubble

Consumer Products Ultra low-VOC formulations; reactivity-based controls

Renewable Energy

Accelerated use of renewable energy and development of 

hydrogen technology and infrastructure

AB32 Implementation Concurrent criteria pollutant reduction technologies

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Table 4-9, page 4-56.

Further reductions from on-road mobile sources

The District would work to achieve further NOx reductions from on-road mobile source 

categories through 1) accelerated turnover of high-emitting vehicles and penetration of 

Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (ATPZEVs) and zero emission vehicles 

(ZEVs), 2) expanded modernization of heavy-duty vehicles through replacement or retrofits; 3) 

fuel reformulations and use of alternatives to diesel fuel, and 4) advanced near-zero and zeroemitting goods movement technologies.

Further reductions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles

The District proposes to work on the development of expanded inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program for heavy-duty diesel trucks by 2015. The smoke inspection program 

already in existence would be expanded to include 1) visual inspection of the emissions control 

devices, 2) an electronic check of the engine‘s on-board computer, and 3) the use of remote 

sensing technology to analyze in-use heavy-duty truck emissions.

Further reductions from off-road mobile sources

This control measure would achieve further NOx reductions from various off-road 

mobile source categories through 1) accelerated turnover of existing equipment and vehicles, 

replacing them with equipment meeting newer emissions standards, 2) retrofit of existing 

vehicles and equipment with add-on controls such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and 3) 

new engine standards for source categories such as aircraft and ships.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 84

Further reductions from consumer products

After the implementation of the control strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP, 

consumer products will be the largest source of VOC in the South Coast air basin. The District 

would therefore implement low-VOC technologies developed for stationary sources into 

categories with similar uses in consumer products. Additionally, the use of lower reactive VOC 

compounds could offer the potential for achieving additional reductions.

Other Control Programs and Commitments

The State and District have a number of other programs which are not all directed at 

ozone attainment but may provide concurrent reductions. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the 

State of California has established the goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 

levels by 2020. Under AB32, CARB must establish a mandatory reporting and tracking system, 

update the emissions inventory, and develop appropriate regulations to achieve maximum 

technologically feasible 

In addition, the South Coast AQMD has identified a ―clean energy‖ strategy that focuses 

agencies and business leaders on using the cleanest technologies, making efficient land-use 

decisions, cleaner energy generation (solar and fuel cells), modernizing old inefficient power 

plants and improving building energy use. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, pp. A-10 to A-12. 

3. Control Strategy

a. Control Strategy in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and Revised 2007 State Strategy

For the purposes of evaluating the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, we 

have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet the 

contingency measures requirement into two categories: baseline measures and control strategy 

measures. 

As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and District rules and 

regulations adopted prior to October 2006 (i.e., prior to the development of the South Coast 2007 

AQMP and 2007 State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the 

attainment year of 2023 and beyond.85 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1, and South Coast 

2007 AQMP, Appendix III, p. III-2-3. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the 

baseline inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide 

the majority of emissions reductions needed to attain the 8-hour ozone standards in the South 

Coast nonattainment area. See Table D-1 in this TSD.

Control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, commitments and other 

adjustments to the inventory that provide the additional increment of emission reductions needed 

 

85 These measures are typically rules that have compliance dates that occur after the adoption date of a plan and 

mobile source measures that generate reductions through fleet turnover.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 85

beyond the baseline measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM and/or RACT, 

and/or provide for contingency measures. 

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in 

Appendices A and B to this TSD.

c. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the South Coast 2007 AQMP, the District identified and committed to updating and 

adopting 15 control measures to reduce emissions of NOx and/or VOC, as well as direct PM2.5 

and SOx since the South Coast 2007 AQMP addresses both 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 attainment. 

In Table C-1 above, we list the anticipated timing of the expected emissions reductions from 

these measures; however, we note that the District‘s commitment is only to aggregate emissions 

reductions. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 4-2 and 4-73 and SCAQMD Governing Board 

Resolution 07-9, p. 10. In Table C-1, we provide the current SIP submittal and approval status 

of the measures in the South Coast 2007 AQMP. As can be seen from Table C-1, the District 

has largely met its rulemaking schedule, and has only a few rule actions remaining. In Table C-2, 

we show the emissions reductions, as given in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as revised in 2011, 

and in individual rule submittals, for the measures that have been approved by EPA and for the 

measures that have been adopted by the District and submitted to EPA, respectively. The 

reductions listed in Table C-2 are the ones anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the 

time the South Coast 2007 AQMP was adopted. Actual reductions from each rule once adopted 

may be greater or less than the anticipated reductions.

c. CARB Measures and Commitments

The 2007 State Strategy includes a commitment by CARB to propose new defined 

measures. 2007 State Strategy, page 62, and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, page 8 and 

2011 Progress Report, Appendix B. Table C-4 above lists these defined measures and their 

current adoption and approval status. These measures focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet as 

well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a number of engine categories, fuels, 

and consumer products. They build on CARB‘s existing program, which addresses emission 

from all types of mobile sources through both regulations and incentive programs. As can be 

seen from this table, the State has already adopted and EPA has approved or proposed to 

approve, or is in the process of granting waivers under CAA section 209, for most of these 

measures. These new measures build on the State‘s already extensive list of adopted measures, 

which can be found in the 2007 State Strategy (page 38) and in Appendix A of this TSD.

California has adopted standards for many categories of on- and off-road vehicles and 

engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of consumer products. The State‘s 

measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to 

obtain a waiver of federal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (―section 209 waiver measure‖ or 

―waiver measure‖) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (―non-waiver 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 86

measure‖). See EPA‘s proposed approval and final approval of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 

74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010).86

i. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for most of California‘s on- and 

nonroad vehicle or engine standards. Examples of State waiver measures are: low emission 

vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off-road engine standards. A list of 

California‘s waiver measures can be found in Appendix A of this TSD.

California‘s motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute 

regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which 

amended the CAA of 1963). In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 

1967 (Pub. L. 90-148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of 

the Air Quality Act‘s pre-emption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new 

motor vehicle engines because of California‘s pioneering efforts and unique problems. This was 

not changed when the statute was amended in 1970. The 1977 amendments to the CAA 

expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.‖ 

(H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). So long as California determines that 

its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain 

findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards 

relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. See 

CAA section 209, subsections (a) and (b).

As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 

209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets 

forth the federal pre-emption of state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines but 

allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with certain 

exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically 

allowed emissions reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are subject to a 

section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA 

for approval as part of the California SIP. In this respect, EPA treated these rules similarly to the 

federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in 

their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. Since 1990, EPA has treated 

California nonroad standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California

motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without 

requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the 

California nonroad standards similarly to the Federal nonroad standards, which are relied upon, 

but not included in, various SIPs.

 

86

 EPA‘s position is also discussed in Brief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Better Arvin, 

et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33-44, which may be found in the docket for today‘s 

rulemaking.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 87

Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road and nonroad 

standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable 

emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). 

Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and 

quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never 

found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the 

applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which 

EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal 

measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on 

considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not 

―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. 

First, with respect to permanence, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on-road 

waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a 

partial backstop to California‘s on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP 

would apply in California). Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measures. The constraints of the 

waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function 

similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. 

Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs 

and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State 

program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to 

most parts of the California program.

Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability 

onto California to enforce the on-road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the 

waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as 

EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA 

program. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California 

SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as 

EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state‘s SIPs in their reliance 

on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not 

authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are 

not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that 

vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification.

As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 88

estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions 

factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehiclerelated waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to 

time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions 

standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as MOBILE.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for 

vehicle deterioration and many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves 

combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations. See the 

1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 

48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for 

the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA 

in California SIP actions.87 The South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan was developed using a 

version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in 

SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions 

reductions that are from the California on-road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through 

use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than 

California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through 

the use of the MOBILE model.

Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval 

process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at 

the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public 

comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and 

supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 

revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver 

has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within 

the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by 

EPA--i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of 

 

87

 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the 

underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 

revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular 

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 89

SIPs and SIP revisions—may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the 

appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

Further statutory support for EPA‘s long-standing practice is found in CAA section 193. 

CAA section 193, enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings 

clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretations that predate those 

amendments to remain in effect so long as not inconsistent with the Act. At the time it enacted 

section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent 

prior treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Moreover, 

where Congress intends state control measures that are otherwise pre-empted under title II of the 

Clean Air Act to be incorporated into SIPs, it has required that explicitly. See, e.g., section 

211(c)(4)(C) (State fuels regulations), section 211(m) (oxygenated gasoline regulations), and 

section 246 (centrally fueled fleets).Thus, in section 193, Congress effectively ratified EPA‘s 

longstanding pre-1990 practice of allowing emissions reduction credit for California standards 

subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself.

As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) 

of section 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection 

(e) sets forth the federal pre-emption of state emissions standards for nonroad vehicles or engines 

but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with certain 

exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles. 

Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision of the 

statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpretation with respect to motor 

vehicle standards is further compelling evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted 

congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 

waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as 

part of the California SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 

1990, effectively ratified our long-standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver 

rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatment of 

California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the 

California waiver provisions to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again 

reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in 

selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the 

waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not 

consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and 

nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California 

faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with 

Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source 

rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. Even if section 

193 did not provide congressional acquiescence as to EPA‘s treatment of the standards, the Act‘s 

structure, evolution, and provision for the waiver of Federal pre-emption for California mobile 

source emissions standards, as discussed above, support EPA‘s long-standing interpretation of 

the CAA to allow California to rely on emission reductions resulting from waiver measures in 

SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 90

ii. Non-waiver measures

These measures include improvements to California‘s inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program, SmogCheck, as well as cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations. A list of these 

non-waiver measures, many of which have been SIP approved, can be found Appendix A.

In addition to the State‘s commitment to propose specific measures, the 2007 State 

Strategy includes an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient in combination 

with existing measures and the District‘s commitments to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

South Coast by the requested attainment date of June 15, 2024. For the South Coast 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the 2007 State Strategy includes a State commitment to achieve 54 tpd of 

VOC and 141 tpd of NOx in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2023. See 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 24 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 4. The nature of this commitment 

is described in the State Strategy as follows:

―The total emission reductions from the new measures necessary to attain the federal

standards are an enforceable State commitment in the SIP. While the proposed State

Strategy includes estimates of the emission reductions from each of the individual new

measures, it is important to note that the commitment of the State Strategy is to 

achieve the total emission reductions necessary to attain the federal standards, which 

would be the aggregate of all existing and proposed new measures combined. 

Therefore, if a particular measure does not get its expected emission reductions, the 

State still commits to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions, whether this is 

realized through additional reductions from the new measures or from alternative 

control measures or incentive programs. If actual emission decreases occur in any air 

basin for which emission reduction commitments have been made that are greater than 

the projected emissions reductions from the adopted measures in the State Strategy, 

the actual emission decreases may be counted toward meeting ARB‘s total emission

reduction commitments.‖

CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Attachment B, p. 3.

The 2011 Progress Report further discusses this commitment: 

―When ARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy as a SIP revision, the State of California 

made a legal commitment, required by the Clean Air Act and enforceable in federal 

court, to reduce emissions to the levels necessary for attainment. ARB specifically 

identified several ways this emission reduction commitment could be achieved: 

New measures as described in the SIP

Other alternative measures that ARB had not considered at the time the 

SIP was adopted

Incentive programs that support the replacement or retrofit of aging, 

higher polluting pieces of equipment

Actual emission decreases‖

2011 Progress Report, p. 4.

As described in section II.A. of this TSD, CARB has adjusted baseline emissions 

estimates for source categories subject to its recently-revised in-use rules. Table C-4 reflects the 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 91

revised implementation schedule CARB submitted in its 2011 Progress Report. Table C-8 shows 

original and adjusted baseline emissions inventories for the sources affected by each measure. 

The adjustments to the inventories show the effect of the resent economic recession and, for 

some source categories, changes to inventory methodologies. These changes are reflected in 

Tables C-5 and C-6 above. Table C-5 lists the emissions reductions (from the adjusted baseline 

emissions inventories) that the State now estimates it will achieve from its measures as adopted 

or revised and which are currently creditable towards CARB‘s commitment. Table C-6 indicates 

the measures currently creditable in the attainment demonstration.

Table C-8. Original and Adjusted Baseline Emissions Inventories for the 

Sources Affected by CARB Control Measures (tons per summer day)

State Measure

NOx VOC

Original Adjusted Change Original Adjusted Change

Smog Check Improvements 

(BAR) 74.3 74.3 0 97.4 97.4 0

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Trucks & Buses 69.7 76.8 +7.1 6.2 6.6 +0.4

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment (>25hp) 45.8 18.9 26.9 8.0 2.0 6.0

Ship Auxiliary Engine Cold 

Ironing and Clean Technology 56.7 40.3 16.4 0.9 1.5 +0.6

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and 

Fuel – Main Engines 46.6 65.8 +19.2 1.9 3.2 +1.3

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner 

Line-Haul Locomotives 21.0 21.0 0 2.4 2.4 0

Clean up Existing Harbor Craft 12.8 18.4 +5.6 1.3 1.0 0.3

Cargo Handling Equipment 2.6 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.3

New Emission Standards for 

Recreational Boats 18.3 18.3 0 50.8 50.8 0

Expanded Off-Road Rec. Vehicle 

Emissions Standards n/a n/a n/a 13.4 13.4 0

Consumer Products Program n/a n/a n/a 109.5 109.5 0
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 92

Table C-8. Original and Adjusted Baseline Emissions Inventories for the 

Sources Affected by CARB Control Measures (tons per summer day)

State Measure

NOx VOC

Original Adjusted Change Original Adjusted Change

All Other State, Local and 

Federal Emissions 157 157 0 241 241 0

Totals: 505 493 12.2 534 529 4.3

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 1.

4. Proposed Action 

In our September 2011 proposal, based on our review of the new technologies provisions 

in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, we proposed to approve the CARB‘s and District‘s 

long-term strategy provisions and related commitments in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP under CAA section 182(e)(5). This proposed approval is based on our finding that these 

provisions satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). 

Based on our review of the RACM analyses and the District‘s and California‘s adopted 

rules, as well as their commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures, we 

proposed to find that there are, at this time, no additional reasonably available control measures 

(including reasonably available control technology) that would advance attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard in the South Coast. Therefore, we proposed to find that the South Coast 

2007 AQMP, together with the 2007 State Strategy, provided for the implementation of all 

RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).

We proposed to approve the SCAQMD‘s commitments to achieve specific aggregate 

reductions of NOx and VOC emissions by specific years as given in Table 4-2A of the 2007 

AQMP, as revised by Tables 2 and 3 of the 2007 Progress Report, Appendix F, and as shown in 

Table C-2 above. We proposed to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined 

measures, as given in Table B-1 in Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report, and Appendix B, 

Table B-1 in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. We also proposed to approve CARB‘s commitment 

to achieve the total aggregate emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area, as given in 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 20 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 4, and shown in 

Table 6 above. See CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 4.

Finally, we proposed to approve CARB‘s and the District‘s long-term strategy 

commitments in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan under the new technology provisions 

of CAA section 182(e)(5). This proposal was based on our proposed findings that these 

commitments satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). First, the South Coast 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan does not rely on any of these new technology reductions to 

demonstration RFP in any milestone year between 2008 and 2020. CARB has committed to 

achieve 241 tpd of NOx and 40 tpd of VOC reductions through new technology measures 

approved under section 182(e)(5) only in the attainment year (2023). We noted that the amount 

and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-term adoption under 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 93

182(e)(5), as compared to measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for nearterm adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIP update, and that EPA will not approve a 

SIP revision that contains an increase in the amount or relative proportion of 182(e)(5) new 

technology measures without a convincing showing in a SIP revision that the technologies relied 

upon in the near-term rules have been found to be technologically infeasible or ineffective in 

achieving emissions reductions in the near-term. 

5. Evaluation and Conclusion on RACM and Control Strategy

CARB and the SCAQMD have demonstrated a clear need for emissions reduction from 

new and improved control technologies to reduce air pollution in the South Coast 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. The adopted control measures and enforceable commitments provide the 

majority, but not all, of the balance of the emissions reductions needed to attain by June 15, 

2024. See Table D-1. For the balance of the reductions needed for attainment, the South Coast

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan relies on the State‘s and District‘s long-term strategy to develop and 

deploy new technologies as is allowed under CAA section 182(e)(5). 

Based on our review of the new technologies provisions in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP, we are approving the CARB‘s and District‘s long-term strategy provisions and 

related commitments in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP under CAA section 182(e)(5). 

This approval is based on our finding that these provisions satisfy the two criteria in CAA 

section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). 

First, the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP does not rely on any of the new 

technology reductions to demonstrate RFP in any milestone year between 2008 and 2020. 

Already adopted measures provide for the required RFP in each milestone year from 2008 until 

the attainment year of 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A-3 and section II.E. of this TSD.

Second, CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit adopted contingency 

measures to EPA by 2020 as required by CAA section 182(e)(5). See CARB Resolution 11-22, 

July 21, 2011. These contingency measures must be adequate to produce emissions reductions 

sufficient, in conjunction with other approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions 

reductions required by CAA sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) and to attain by the applicable dates. 

See CAA 182(e)(5). Following the State‘s submittal of these contingency measures, EPA will 

approve or disapprove the provisions in accordance with CAA section 110.

Both CARB and the District have taken steps to research, demonstrate and deploy 

technologies for achieving the needed reductions. These steps include establishing a Technology 

Advancement Program and funding incentive programs. Both CARB and the District have made 

commitments to research, evaluate, adopt and implement long-term measures as they are 

identified. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, pp. A-8-A-12.

The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments by CARB to develop and submit 

revisions to the Strategy by no later than 2020 that will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023 

emissions reduction target based on updated science and (2) identify additional strategies and 

implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision, p. A-8. The District also committed to make by the end of 2019 the necessary 

revisions.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 94

CARB has also committed to achieve 241 tpd of NOx reductions and 40 tpd of VOC 

reductions in 2023 through new technology measures approved under section 182(e)(5). We note 

that the amount and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-term 

adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already adopted in regulatory form or 

scheduled for near-term adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIP update, and that EPA 

will not approve a SIP revision that contains an increase in the amount or relative proportion of 

section 182(e)(5) new technology measures without a convincing showing in a SIP revision that 

the technologies relied upon in the near-term rules have been found to be technologically 

infeasible or ineffective in achieving the expected emissions reductions.

As described above, the District evaluated a range of potentially available measures for 

inclusion in its 2007 Ozone Plan and committed to adopt those it found to be reasonably 

available for implementation in the South Coast nonattainment area. The process and the criteria 

the District used to select certain measures and reject others were consistent with EPA‘s RACM 

guidance. The evaluation processes undertaken by SCAG and the State were also consistent with 

EPA‘s RACM guidance. See e.g., General Preamble at 13560 and Seitz memo. 

Based on our review of these RACM analyses and the District‘s and California‘s adopted 

rules, as well as their commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures, we find 

that there are, at this time, no additional reasonably available control measures (including 

reasonably available control technology) that would advance attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards in the South Coast. Therefore, we find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP, 

together with the 2007 State Strategy, provide for the implementation of all RACM as required 

by CAA section 172(c)(1).

We are approving the SCAQMD‘s commitments to achieve specific aggregate reductions 

of NOx and VOC emissions by specific years as given in Table 4-2A of the 2007 AQMP, as 

revised by Tables 2 and 3 of the 2007 Progress Report, Appendix F, and as shown in Table 2 

above. 

We are approving CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given in 

Table B-1 in Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report, and Appendix D, Table B-1 in the 2011 

Ozone SIP Revision. We also are approving CARB‘s commitment to achieve the total aggregate 

emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards in the South Coast nonattainment area, as given in 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

p. 20 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 4, and shown in Table C-5 above. See 

CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 4.

Finally, we are approving CARB‘s and the District‘s long-term strategy commitments in 

the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan under the new technology provisions of CAA section 

182(e)(5). This approval is based on our findings that these commitments satisfy the two criteria 

in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). First, the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan does not 

rely on any of these new technology reductions to demonstration RFP in any milestone year 

between 2008 and 2020. CARB has committed to achieve 241 tpd of NOx and 40 tpd of VOC 

reductions through new technology measures approved under section 182(e)(5) only in the 

attainment year (2023). We note that the amount and relative proportion of reductions from 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 95

measures scheduled for long-term adoption under 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already 

adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-term adoption, should clearly decrease in any 

future SIP update, and that EPA will not approve a SIP revision that contains an increase in the 

amount or relative proportion of 182(e)(5) new technology measures without a convincing 

showing in a SIP revision that the technologies relied upon in the near-term rules have been 

found to be technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving emissions reductions in the 

near-term. 

CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to submit adopted contingency 

measures to EPA by 2020 as required by CAA 182(e)(5). See CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 

2011; see also letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated November 18, 2011. These contingency measures must be 

adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other approved plan 

provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions required by CAA section 182(b)(1) or 

(c)(2) and attainment by the applicable attainment date. See CAA 182(e)(5). Following the 

State‘s submittal of these contingency measures, EPA will approve or disapprove the provisions 

in accordance with CAA section 110.

Based on the above discussion and evaluations, we are determining that the long-term 

strategy for the South Coast 8-Hour Ozone SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA 182(e)(5).

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RACM Demonstration and the

Long-Term Strategy 

We received several comments on our proposed approval of the 182(e)(5) provisions and 

on our proposed approval of the RACM demonstration. We have reviewed these comments and 

provided responses to them. See section III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments 

changed our finding that the RACM demonstration and the CAA 182(e)(5) long-term strategy 

commitment in the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan are consistent with the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 96

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section 182(c) (2)(A) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

serious or above to submit plans that demonstrate attainment of the applicable standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable attainment date. Under the 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule, this demonstration is due within three years of the area‘s designation 

and should include:

(1) technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are 

contributing to violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the nonattainment area; 

(2) adopted measures with schedules for implementation and other means and techniques 

necessary and appropriate for attainment; and 

(3) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

See 72 FR 71612, at 71615. 

The requirements for parts 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory, air quality 

modeling, RACM and control strategy sections of this TSD. Requirements for part 3 are 

described in the contingency measures section of this TSD. In this section, we evaluate how 

these parts taken together provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the South 

Coast as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.

2. Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

The attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP is in Chapter 5, ―Future 

Air Quality,‖ with additional technical information in Appendix V of the AQMP. It is 

summarized in Table D-1 below. Table D-2 shows the contribution by the District and CARB to 

the control strategy as given in the South Coast 2007 AQMP as submitted in November 2007 and 

revised in 2009 and 2011.

Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the South Coast 2007 

AQMP, both CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures that they committed to 

adopt in their plans, and most have been approved, proposed for approval, or granted a CAA 

section 209 waiver by EPA. See Tables D-4 and C-2. In the 2011 Progress Report and 2011 

Ozone SIP Revision, CARB and the District have updated the emissions reductions expected 

from their adopted measures and resulting from changes to the inventory and the economic 

recession. Table D-3 shows the impact of these updates on the attainment demonstration, and 

Tables D-4 and D-5 show the effect of these updates and EPA‘s proposed and final approvals on 

the level of commitments remaining in the attainment demonstration. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 97

Table D-1

Summary of the Attainment Demonstration, South Coast 2007 AQMP, as 

Submitted in November 2007 (tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

A 2006 baseline emissions level 972 732

B 2023 attainment target level 114 420

C

Total reductions needed from 2006 baseline levels 

to attain in 2023 (A – B) 858 312

D 2023 baseline emissions level 505 533

Reductions from baseline measures (A-D) 467 199

% of reductions needed for attainment from baseline 

measures

54% 64%

Reductions needed from control strategy measures 

(D - B)

391 113

% of reductions needed for attainment from control 

strategy measures 46% 36%

Table D-2

Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency

South Coast 2007 AQMP as Submitted November 2007

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain 858 312

Total reductions from control strategy 

measures/commitments (CARB+SC) 141+9 54+19

Reductions from long-term measures 241 40

District commitments 9 19

Percent of total control strategy reductions from 

District commitments 1% 6%
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 98

State commitments 141 54

Percent of total control strategy reductions from 

State commitments 16% 17%

Table D-3

Summary of the Attainment Demonstration

Updated July 2011 with Additional Adjustments

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

A 2002 baseline emissions levela 1024 881

B 2023 attainment target level 114 420

C

Total reductions needed from 2002

baseline levels to attain in 2023 (A – B) 910 461

D Unadjusted 2023 baseline emissions level 505 534

E

Adjustment to 2023 baseline emissions 

level 12 5

F

Adjusted 2023 baseline emissions level 

(D–E) 493 529

Reductions from baseline measures (A-F) 531 352

Percent of reductions needed for 

attainment from baseline measures 58% 76%

Reductions needed from control strategy 

measures (B –F) 379 109

Percent of reductions needed for 

attainment from control strategy measures

42% 24%

a

CARB changed the base year for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision to 2002.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 99

Table D-4

Summary of the Attainment Remaining as Commitments based on Approved 

Measures using Updated Emissions Reductions Estimates

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

A

Total reductions needed from baseline and control 

strategy measures to attain 910 461

B Reductions from baseline measures 531 352

C

Total reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval measures

122.4 31.3

Long-term control measures 241 40

D

Total reductions remaining as commitments (A-BC) 15.8 37

Percent of total reductions needed remaining as 

commitmentsa 2% 8%

E Total District commitments 9.2 19.2

F Total reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval District measures 7.7 15.3

G Total reductions remaining as District 

commitments 1.5 3.9

Percent of District‘s commitments remaining as 

commitments <<1% <1%
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 100

Table D-5

Summary of Reductions Needed for South Coast‘s 8-hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration, Updated July 2011

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

A 2002 base year emissions level 1024 881

B 2023 attainment target level 114 420

C

Total reductions needed from 2002 baseline levels to 

attain in 2023 (A – B) 910 461

D

Reductions from adopted measures, July 2011 Ozone 

SIP revision 531 352

E New State commitments 141 54

F New local/AQMD measures 9 19

G Long term measures (182(e)(5)) 241 40

G Total from adopted and long-term measures (from 

Table D-8 – includes District reductions) 122.4 31.3

H Reductions from commitments 15.8 37

I Percent of reductions needed for attainment from 

commitments 2% 8%

3. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration

a. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment plans to ―include enforceable emission 

limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for 

attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date....‖ See also CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A). The 8-hour ozone implementation rule requires that all control measures 

needed for attainment be implemented no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone 

season. 40 CFR § 51.908(d). the attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone season 

immediately preceding a nonattainment area‘s applicable attainment date. 40 CFR § 51.900(g).

In most instances, a nonattainment plan should include the adopted measures it relies on 

to demonstrate attainment and RFP and/or meet other CAA requirement or should identify the 

adopted measures it relies on that are already SIP approved, federally promulgated, or otherwise 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 101

SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of 

enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. We believe that the CAA 

allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy 

requirement where they are limited in scope. The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6) cited above is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ―means or techniques‖ that 

EPA determines are ―necessary or appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area 

will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the applicable attainment date. 

Furthermore, the express allowance for ―schedules and timetables‖ demonstrates that Congress 

understood that all required controls might not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully 

approved.

Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA 

and citizens under, respectively, CAA sections 113 and 304. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions against states that failed to comply 

with them. See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), 

aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 

848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. 

granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air 

Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to 

meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA 

section 179(a)(4), which starts an 18-month period for the state to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.

Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant the use of an enforceable commitment, 

EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) 

does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) is the 

state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time.88

b. Enforceable Commitments in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

As stated and shown in Table D-6 below, reductions in the projected baseline inventory 

resulting from the economic recession, changes to activity estimates and emission factors, and 

measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to and pursuant to the South Coast 

2007 AQMP) and approved or proposed for approval by EPA provide the great majority of 

emission reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the 

South Coast nonattainment area. The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of 

enforceable commitments by CARB and the District. 

We believe that, with respect to the South Coast 2007 AQMP and revised 2007 State 

Strategy, circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the 

attainment demonstration for the South Coast nonattainment area. As shown in Table D-1 and 

D-3 above, the majority of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP in 

 

88

 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving enforceable commitments in the 

Houston-Galveston ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 102

the South Coast nonattainment area come from rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 

2007, i.e., they come from the baseline measures. As a result of these State and District efforts, 

most sources in the South Coast nonattainment area were already subject to stringent rules prior 

to the State Strategy‘s and the South Coast 2007 AQMP‘s development, leaving fewer and more 

technologically challenging opportunities to reduce emissions in the nonattainment area. In the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential 

control measures that could achieve the additional emission reductions needed for attainment. 

See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 4, and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the 

timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these measures went well beyond the 

November 2007

89 deadline to submit the 8-hour ozone attainment plan. As discussed above, the 

District and State have made progress meeting their commitments but have not completely filled 

them. Given these circumstances, we consider the District‘s and CARB‘s reliance in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 State Strategy on enforceable commitments to be warranted. 

Having concluded that the use of enforceable commitments is warranted, we now 

consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in 

lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA planning requirements is approvable: (a) does the 

commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) is the state capable 

of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.

 

89

 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. The 8-hour ozone SIPs were due in November 2007, and the development and adoption of the State 

Strategy was timed to coordinate with this submittal date. 2007 State Strategy, p. 1. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 103

Table D-6

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based on 

Approved Measures Using Updated Emissions Reductions Estimates

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

A

Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain 910 461

B Reductions from baseline measures 531 352

C

Total reductions needed from new measures, 

commitments

141 (CARB) +9 

(SC) = 150

54 (CARB)+19 (SC) 

= 73

D

Total reductions needed from new technology 

measures,

241 40

E

F

Total reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval/waived measures and adjustments to 

baseline

122.4 (includes 

7.7 from SC and 

114.7 from 

CARB)

31 (includes 15.3 tpd 

SC and 15.9 tpd 

CARB)

Total reductions remaining as commitments (AB-C)a 15.8 37

% of total reductions needed remaining as 

commitmentsa, b 2% 8%

Total District commitments 9.2 19.3

Total reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval District measures 7.7 15.3

Total reductions remaining as District 

commitments 1.5 3.9

Percent of District‘s commitments remaining as 

commitments compared to overall reductions 

needed

<1% <1%

a

Includes local reductions. (see 2011 Ozone SIP Revision).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 104

Table D-7

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments Based on SIPCreditable Measures (tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

Total CARB commitments 141 54

Reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval/waived measures and adjustments to 

baseline

114.7 15.9

Changes to 2023 baseline from EI improvements 12 5

Total reductions remaining as CARB commitments 14.3 33.1

% of CARB commitments remaining as 

commitments compared to overall reductions 

needed

1.6% 7.2%

i. The Commitments are a Limited Portion of Required Reductions

For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a limited portion of a 

statutory requirement, such as the amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment in a 

nonattainment area. 

As shown in Table D-6, the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments after 

accounting for approved and proposed for approval measures, as well as adjustments to the 

baseline that resulted from the recent economic recession are 16 tpd NOx and 37 tpd VOC.

When compared to the total reductions needed by 2023 for 8-hour ozone attainment in the South 

Coast nonattainment area on a per-pollutant basis, the remaining portion of the enforceable 

commitments represents approximately 2 percent of the NOx reductions and 8 percent of the 

VOC reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standardsin the South Coast. 

We believe that the reductions remaining as enforceable commitments in the South Coast 

2007 AQMP and updated 2007 State Strategy represent a limited portion of the total emissions 

reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement for attainment in the South Coast and 

therefore satisfy the first factor. The level of reductions remaining as commitments is 

approximately within the 10 percent range or less that EPA has historically accepted in 

approving attainment demonstrations.90

 

90 See, for example, our approval of the SJV PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1-hour ozone plan 

at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14,

2001).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 105

ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment

For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling 

their commitments. 

As discussed above, CARB has adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report and a 2011 Ozone SIP Revision which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These

SIP revisions show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable 

commitments for the South Coast and several other nonattainment areas in California. Additional 

ongoing programs that addresses locomotives and revisions to the SmogCheck program have yet 

to be quantified but are expected to reduce NOx and VOC emissions in the South Coast by 2023. 

See CARB 2011 Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 5. The 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report includes a table with estimates of the reductions that may fulfill the CARB‘s full 

commitment. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 17.

The District has also made good progress in meeting its enforceable commitments. The 

District‘s continued efforts in committing to and adopting measures for sources under its 

jurisdiction will help the District fully meet its commitments. The District has also already 

adopted rules that are projected to achieve NOx reductions of 9.2 tpd in 2023. See Table C-2

above. The District is continuing to work to identify and adopt additional control measures to 

reduce emissions. 

Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have well-funded 

incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on- and off-road engine fleets. Reductions 

from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment 

demonstration. 

Given the evidence of the State's and District‘s efforts to date and their continuing efforts 

to reduce emissions, we believe that the State and District are capable of meeting their 

enforceable commitments to reduce emissions of NOx and VOC to the levels needed to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast nonattainment area by 2023. 

iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe

For the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment is for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. 

In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to the levels needed to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast by 2023, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and 2007 

State Strategy as revised include ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation 

schedules, which both the District and CARB have substantially met. EPA considers these

schedules to provide sufficient time to achieve the committed reductions by 2023 as needed to 

attain by the proposed attainment date of June 15, 2024. See Tables D-3 and D-5 above. We 

therefore conclude that the third factor is satisfied.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 106

4. Proposed Action

a. Baseline and Control Strategy Measures

As shown in Table D-9, the majority of the emission reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment come from baseline measures. These reductions come from a combination of District 

and State measures as well as adjustments to the baseline that reflect revisions to the economic 

forecasts that underlie the 2007 AQMP‘s estimate of future emissions levels.

91

In the past two decades, the District has adopted or revised about 80 prohibitory rules that 

limit emissions of NOx, VOC, particulate matter and/or SOx including most of the rule 

adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of the South Coast 2007 AQMP. See Appendix B 

and Tables C-1 and C-2. These rules include controls for boilers, fugitive dust sources, internal 

combustion engines, wood burning, and open burning. The great majority of these District rules 

and rule revisions are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully 

creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for meeting other CAA requirements, such 

as contingency measures.

b. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan

EPA believes circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as 

part of the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 AQMP and updated 2007 State 

Strategy. As stated above, measures already adopted by the District and State and approved or 

proposed for approval pursuant to CAA section 110(k) or waived pursuant to CAA section 209 

by EPA provide the great majority of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast by 2024. We have found that the reductions 

that remain as enforceable commitments represent a limited portion of the overall reductions 

needed for attainment. We have also found that the State and District are capable of fulfilling 

their remaining commitments and that the commitments are for a time period that is both 

reasonable and appropriate to assure that the remaining reductions are in place prior to the 

attainment date of June 15, 2024. As a result of our findings, in September 2011, EPA proposed

to accept enforceable commitments as part of California‘s strategy to attain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS in the South Coast.

c. Proposed Action on Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration to Reduce 

Emissions and Adopt Specific Measures

In September 2011, we proposed to approve the District‘s commitments to adopt and 

implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in Table 7-3 (as amended March 

4, 2011 and reflected in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix F of the 2011 Progress Report) in the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP, to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled, and to 

 

91

 Reductions in the baseline also come from federal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s national 

emission standards for heavy duty diesel trucks (66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001)), certain new construction and farm 

equipment (Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 (October, 23, 1998) and Tier 4 diesel non-road 

engine standards, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004)), and locomotives (63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 FR 37045 

(June 30, 2008)). States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 107

achieve specific aggregate emissions reductions of NOx and VOC by as given in Tables 2 and 3

of Appendix F of the 2011 Progress Report. 

We also proposed to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, 

as given in Table B-1 in the 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B and to achieve the total 

aggregate emissions reductions necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South 

Coast nonattainment area, whether these reductions are realized from the new measures, 

alternative control measures, incentive programs, or other actual emissions decreases in the area.

See CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Attachment B, p. 4. This commitment is 

estimated to be aggregate emissions reductions of 141 tpd NOx and 54 tpd of VOC in the South 

Coast nonattainment area by 2023 as given on page 20 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report. 

5. Overall Evaluation and Conclusion on the Attainment Demonstration

In order to approve a SIP‘s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings 

and approve the State‘s requested attainment date.

First, we must find that the demonstration‘s technical bases -emissions inventories and air 

quality modeling - are adequate. As discussed above in sections II.A. and II.B., we are 

proposing to find that the emissions inventories and the air quality modeling on which the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP‘s attainment demonstration is based meet applicable EPA regulations and 

guidance and are an acceptable basis for the demonstration.

Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the 

implementation of all RACM on ozone precursor emissions of VOC and NOx. As discussed 

above in section II.B., we are proposing to approve the RACM demonstration in the South Coast 

2007 AQMP .

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are 

creditable. As discussed in this section, the South Coast 2007 AQMP relies principally on 

adopted and approved/waived rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast by June 15, 2024. The balance of the reductions is 

currently in the form of enforceable commitments that account for 2 percent of the NOx and 8

percent of the VOC emissions reductions needed from 2002 levels for attainment. See Table C-9.

EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control 

measures in attainment demonstrations when the circumstances warrant it and the commitments 

meet three criteria. As discussed above in section II.D.3, we believe that circumstances here 

warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments and that the three criteria are met: 1) the 

commitments constitute a limited portion of the required emissions reductions, 2) both the State 

and the District have demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments, and 3) the 

commitment are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these conclusions, we are proposing to 

allow the State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments in its attainment demonstration.

For the foregoing reasons, we are approving the attainment demonstration in the South 

Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 108

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Attainment Demonstration

We proposed to approve the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-hour 

ozone plan at 76 FR 57872, 57887. We received comments asserting that CARB‘s commitments 

to aggregate emissions reductions were not approvable, the new technology provisions were not 

approvable, and the attainment demonstration relied on emissions reductions from measures 

(e.g., waiver measures) that were not SIP-creditable. We have reviewed these comments and find 

that none cause us to revise our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration. A summary 

of these comment and our complete responses can be found in section III of this TSD. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 109

E. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

CAA Section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas shall provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as ―such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D – Plan 

Requirements for Nonattainment Areas] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for 

the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.‖

CAA Section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that ozone nonattainment areas which are 

classified as moderate or above demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

between the years of 1990 and 1996. 

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or higher, CAA Section 182(c)(2)(B) 

also requires a 3% per year reduction until attainment of ozone precursor emissions in addition to 

the 15% reduction required under CAA 182(b)(1).

CAA Section 182(b)(1)(D) prohibits the state from including emissions reductions from 

pre-1990 federal motor vehicle programs when demonstrating RFP. In other words, the 

reductions from these programs are not creditable when demonstrating RFP. There are some 

other specific emissions reductions that are not creditable under this section of the Act, but those 

restrictions are of a historic nature and are not applicable to this action. 

The ozone implementation rule (40 CFR § 51.910(d) and 70 FR 71612) establishes 

requirements for RFP that depend on the area‘s classification as well as whether the area has an 

approved 15 percent reduction plan for the 1-hour ozone standards that covers all of the 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area. Here, we will only describe the requirements applicable to the South 

Coast ozone nonattainment area which is classified as extreme and has a fully-approved 

182(b)(1) plan for the one-hour ozone NAAQS that covers the current 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (see 62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997 page 1181).

For the South Coast nonattainment area, the ozone implementation rule requires an RFP 

plan providing for an average of 3 percent per year of VOC and/or NOx emissions reductions for 

(1) the 6-year period beginning January 1 of the year following the year used for the baseline 

emissions inventory; and (2) all remaining 3-year periods after the first 6-year period out to the 

area's attainment date. Except as specifically provided in section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act, all SIPapproved or federally promulgated emissions reductions that occur after the baseline emissions 

inventory year are creditable for purposes of the RFP requirements, provided the reductions meet 

the requirements for creditability, including the need to be enforceable, permanent, quantifiable

and surplus, as described for purposes of State economic incentive programs in the requirements 

of 40 CFR § 51.493. The implementation rule also sets the base year for RFP calculations as 

2002.

92

 

92 States have the option of using an alternative base year by providing a rationale why it is appropriate to 

use the alternative baseline year rather than 2002 to comply with the CAA‘s RFP provisions. 40 CFR 51.910(d).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 110

The RFP demonstration must calculate and exclude the non-creditable reductions 

described in CAA 182(b)(1)(D). The method for calculating the target emissions levels is found 

in Appendix A to the preamble of the ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71612 at 71696). This 

method adjusts the baseline target emission levels for VOC and NOx by removing the benefits of 

the non-creditable programs.

2. RFP Demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

The RFP demonstration is in Appendix A-2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submitted 

by CARB on July 29, 2011.

Table E-1 provides the updated RFP demonstration from the 2011 Progress Report 

(ozone season tons per day).

Table E-1 Updated RFP Demonstration from the 2011 Progress Report

(tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Line ROG

A Baseline 880.5 632.0 579.9 535.2 519.8 513.9 513.4

B

MVCP/RVP 

Adjustment 0.0 56.1 73.0 86.6 93.7 98.3 101.6

C RACT Correction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

D

Baseline ROG in 

milestone year 880.5 824.4 807.5 793.9 786.8 782.2 778.9

E

RFP commitment 

for ROG reductions 

from new measures

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F

Future Year ROG 

with existing and 

proposed measures

632.0 579.9 535.2 519.8 513.9 513.4

G

Required Percent 

change since 

previous milestone 

year compared to 

2002

18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

H

Required percent 

change since 2002 18% 27% 36% 45% 54% 63%

I Target level 676.0 599.8 533.4 479.0 431.7 389.8

J Apparent shortfall -44.0 -19.9 1.7 40.8 82.2 123.6

K

Apparent shortfall 

in ROG, percent -5.3% -2.5% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5% 15.9%

L

Shortfall previous 

provided by 

substitution

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5%

M

Actual shortfall, 

percent -5.3% -2.5% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 111

Line

N Baseline 1024.1 728.3 591.2 532.1 478.8 428.2 378.4

O

MVCP/RVP 

Adjustment 0 64.7 80.6 93.0 98.3 102.4 105.9

P

Adjusted NOx 

Baseline in 

milestone year

1024.1 959.4 943.5 931.1 925.8 921.7 918.2

Q

RFP commitment 

for reductions 

from new 

measures

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

R

Change in NOx 

since 2002 231.1 352.3 399.0 447.0 493.5 539.8

S

Change in NOx 

since 2002 percent 24.1% 37.3% 42.8% 48.3% 53.5% 58.8%

T

NOx Reductions 

since 2002 already 

used for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency 

through last 

milestone, percent

0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 8.2% 13.5%

U

NOx Reductions 

since 2002 

available for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in 

milestone year, 

percentage

24.1% 34.3% 39.8% 45.1% 45.4% 45.3%

V

Change in NOx 

since 2002 used 

for ROG 

substitution in this 

milestone year, 

percent

0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%

W

Change in NOx 

since 2002 

available for

contingency in this 

milestone year, 

percentage

3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

X

Change since 2002 

surplus after 

meeting 

substitution and 

contingency in this 

milestone year, 

percentage

21.1% 34.3% 39.6% 40.1% 40.0% 39.9%

RFP met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 112

3. Proposed Action

In September 2011, we found that the revised RFP demonstration provided in Appendix 

A-2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision submitted by ARB on July 29, 2011 conformed to the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance. CARB has correctly calculated the RFP target 

levels for the appropriate years following the method provided in the ozone implementation rule 

and preamble. As shown in Table E-2, the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for 

RFP in each milestone year, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. 

The calculations demonstrate that the South Coast nonattainment area has sufficient emissions 

reductions in each milestone year to show RFP as required by CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 

182(b)(1). We therefore proposed in September 2011 to approve the RFP demonstration in the 

South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP under sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2) of the CAA.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

The information provided by CARB (reproduced in Table E-1) follows CARB‘s

standards format and is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and relevant EPA 

regulations and guidance, as described in section 1 of this chapter. 

EPA has modified ARB‘s table to make the calculations easier to follow. EPA has also 

changed the term ROG for Reactive Organic Gasses to Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) to 

be consistent with federal terminology. These two terms refer to the same chemical species. This 

table also makes it clear that the pre-1990 motor vehicle control non-creditable reductions get 

smaller over time. The CARB table implies the opposite. The modified table is below and is 

followed by a description of the important components. 

Table E-2 provides EPA‘s analysis of California‘s RFP demonstration for the South 

Coast 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.

Table E-2. EPA’s Analysis of California’s RFP demonstration for the South 

Coast (tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Line ROG

A Baseline VOC 880.5 632.0 579.9 535.2 519.8 513.9 513.4

B

MVCP/RVP 

Adjustment 0.0 56.1 16.9 13.6 7.1 4.6 3.3

C

Adjusted 

baseline 824.4 807.5 793.9 786.8 782.2 778.9

D

Basis for 

reductions 824.4 659.1 586.2 526.3 474.4 428.4

E

Required 

Percent change

since previous 

milestone year

18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

F

Target VOC 

level 676.0 599.8 533.4 479.0 431.7 389.8
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 113

G

Apparent 

shortfall -44.0 -19.9 1.8 40.8 82.2 123.6

H

Apparent 

shortfall in 

VOC, percent

-5.3% -2.5% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5% 15.9%

I

Shortfall 

previous 

provided by 

substitution

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.2% 10.5%

J

Actual shortfall, 

percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%

Line NOx

K NOx Baseline 1024.1 728.3 591.2 532.1 478.8 428.2 378.4

L MVCP 0 64.7 15.9 12.4 5.3 4.1 3.5

M

Adjusted NOx 

Baseline in 

milestone year

1024.1 959.4 943.5 931.1 925.8 921.7 918.2

N

Change in NOx 

since 2002 231.1 352.3 399.0 447.0 493.5 539.8

O

Change in NOx 

since 2002 

percent

24.1% 37.3% 42.8% 48.3% 53.5% 58.8%

P

NOx Reductions 

since 2002 

already used for 

RFP 

substitution and 

contingency 

through last 

milestone, 

percent

0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.2% 8.2% 13.5%

Q

NOx Reductions 

since 2002 

available for 

RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in 

milestone year, 

percentage

24.1% 34.3% 39.8% 45.1% 45.4% 45.3%

R

Change in NOx 

since 2002 used 

for ROG 

substitution in 

this milestone 

year, percent

0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 5.0% 5.3% 5.4%
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 114

S

Change since 

2002 surplus 

after meeting 

substitution and 

contingency in 

this milestone 

year, percentage

24.1% 34.3% 39.5% 40.1% 40.0% 39.9%

RFP met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Contingency met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

The table begins with 2002 as the milestone year. This is appropriate and consistent with 

the requirements of the ozone implementation rule. The table starts with a 6-year 18% reduction 

requirement and then adds 3% per year evaluated with milestones every three years. This results 

in a 9% reduction required from milestone to milestone after the initial 6-year reduction. Table 

E-3 below describes the rows in Table E-2.

Table E-3: Description of the Rows in the RFP Demonstration Calculation

A Baseline VOC

The total ozone season daily VOC emissions in the South 

Coast nonattainment area. It includes benefits from control 

measures that were in place prior to the submittal of the 

2007 air quality management plan (AQMP). It does not 

include emission reductions from state or district measures 

in the 2007 AQMP that are required for the attainment 

demonstration.

B MVCP/RVP Adjustment

The pre-1990 motor vehicle control program must be 

excluded from consideration when demonstrating RFP. 

These numbers are calculated using the on-road emissions 

model according to a method described in Appendix A of 

the preamble to the ozone implementation rule (70 FR 

71696).

C Adjusted baseline

The baseline emissions with the non-creditable reductions 

removed. This number serves as the basis for calculating 

the target emission rate in 2008. In subsequent years, it is 

used to in the calculation of the percentage reduction 

shortfall.

D Basis for reductions

This number is reduced by the required percentage to 

calculate the target emission rate. In the first milestone 

year, 2008, it is the same as the adjusted baseline. In 

subsequent milestone years it is equal to the previous 

milestone year‘s target VOC level minus that milestone 

year‘s non-creditable MVCP/RVP adjustment.

E

Required Percent change 

since previous milestone 

year

Self explanatory.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 115

F Target VOC level

The basis for reductions reduced by the appropriate 

percentage. For example, in 2008 it is the 2008 basis for 

reductions (824.4 tons per day) reduced by 18%.

G Apparent shortfall

The target VOC level minus the baseline VOC. In the 2008 

and 2011 milestone years, the baseline VOC was lower 

than the target level. So, there is no shortfall in these 

years.

H

Apparent shortfall in 

VOC, percent

The percentage shortfall calculated by dividing the 

apparent shortfall by the adjusted baseline for that 

milestone year.

I

Shortfall previous 

provided by substitution

This is the shortfall addressed by NOx substitution in 

previous milestone years. For example, in 2017, 0.2% of 

the VOC shortfall was eliminated by NOx substitution. 

This must be accounted for in subsequent years to prevent 

double-counting.

J Actual shortfall, percent

This is the percentage shortfall of VOC less the shortfall 

previously addressed by NOx substitution. This is the 

shortfall that must be addressed by NOx in the current 

milestone year in order to demonstrate RFP.

K NOx Baseline

The total ozone season daily NOx emissions in the South 

Coast nonattainment area. It includes benefits from control 

measures that were in place prior to the submittal of the 

2007 AQMP. It does not include emissions reductions 

from state or district measures in the 2007 AQMP that are 

required for the attainment demonstration.

L MVCP

The pre-1990 motor vehicle control program controls for 

on-road vehicles that must be excluded from consideration 

when demonstrating RFP. These numbers are calculated 

using the on-road emissions model according to a method 

described in Appendix A of the preamble to the ozone 

implementation rule.

M

Adjusted NOx Baseline in 

milestone year

This is the baseline emissions with the non-creditable 

reductions removed. This number serves as the basis for 

calculating percentage reductions since 2002.

N Change in NOx since 2002 This number is based on the adjusted baseline so that the 

non-creditable reductions are excluded.

O

Change in NOx since 2002 

percent

This is the percentage change calculated as the change 

since 2002 divided by the adjusted NOx baseline.

P

NOx Reductions since 

2002 already used for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency through last 

milestone, percent

ARB reserves 3% (one year of RFP) for contingency. This 

first appears in this row of the table in the 2011 milestone 

year. No contingency is needed for 2008, since they had 

already demonstrated compliance with the 2008 milestone 

when they submitted this analysis in 2011. ARB reserves 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 116

this 3% so it will be available for contingency purposes 

later in the plan. This row also includes NOx percentages 

previously used for VOC substitution. It is zero in 2008 

because there is no VOC shortfall to address and there is 

no need for contingency either. In 2017, this number rises 

to 3.2% to address the 0.2% of NOx reductions used to 

show RFP in the 2014 milestone year as well as the 3% 

reserved for contingency.

Q

NOx Reductions since 

2002 available for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in milestone 

year, percentage

If a NOx reduction has been used for substitution or 

reserved for contingency, it is not available for 

substitution. This number is the raw percentage reduction 

minus the NOx reductions already consumed as reflected 

in the row immediately above.

R

Change in NOx since 2002 

used for ROG substitution 

in this milestone year, 

percent

Self explanatory.

S

Change since 2002 surplus 

after meeting substitution 

and contingency in this 

milestone year, percentage

This is the surplus NOx reduction available this milestone 

year once the contingency reservation and all substitutions 

are subtracted out. If this number is greater than zero, RFP 

and contingency requirements have been met for this 

milestone year.

The revised RFP demonstration provided in Appendix A-2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision submitted by CARB on July 29, 2011 conforms to the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA guidance. CARB has correctly calculated the RFP target levels for the appropriate years 

following the method provided in the ozone implementation rule and preamble. As shown in 

Table E-2, the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in each milestone year, 

consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. The calculations demonstrate 

that the South Coast nonattainment area has sufficient emissions reductions in each milestone 

year to show RFP as required by CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1). We therefore approve 

the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP under sections 182(b)(1) and 

182(c)(2) of the CAA.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RFP Demonstration

We received no comments on our proposed approval of the RFP demonstration. No 

issues were raised that changed our finding that the RFP demonstration in the South Coast 2007 

8-hour ozone plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 117

F. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to 

Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to 

Provide for RFP and Attainment

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to 

Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and 

Attainment

CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as severe or extreme submit 

transportation control strategies (TCS) and measures (TCMs) sufficient to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, and to provide (along with other 

measures) the reductions needed to meet applicable RFP requirements. CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) also requires that states choose and implement such measures as are specified in 

section 108(f), to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment. In selecting the measures, 

Congress directed that States ―should ensure adequate access to downtown, other commercial, 

and residential areas and should avoid measures that increase or relocate emissions and 

congestion rather than reduce them.‖CAA 182(d)(1)(A).

EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three required elements of section 

182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth, attainment of the RFP reduction, and attainment 

of the ozone NAAQS) as separable. As to the first element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., 

offsetting emissions growth), EPA has historically interpreted this CAA provision to allow areas 

to meet the requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year 

through the attainment year. General Preamble at 13521, 13522.93

2. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions 

Increases from Vehicle Miles Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP

Information in Chapter 6, Table 6-12 from the South Coast 2007 AQMP, reproduced in 

Table F-1 below, shows that on-road mobile source emissions of VOC and NOx decline steadily 

from 2002 to 2023. This decline in emissions is due to EPA‘s and California‘s on-road mobile 

source programs, California‘s clean fuels and SmogCheck programs, and CARB‘s in-use truck 

and bus rule. As discussed above in Section II.C., these programs are fully creditable for SIP 

planning purposes in attainment and RFP demonstrations, including demonstrating compliance 

with CAA section 182(d)(1). The on-road emissions in Table F-1 are derived from the inventory 

used in the modeling analysis for the South Coast 2007 AQMP and are calculated using 

EMFAC2007 (the most recent EPA-approved mobile source emissions model in California), and 

 

93 See also 60 FR 48896 (September 21, 1995) approval of Illinois‘ vehicle miles traveled plan for the Chicago area;

62 FR 23410 (April 30, 1997) and 62 FR 35100 (June 30, 1997), proposed and final approval of New Jersey‘s 15 

percent ROP plan and other provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 

23849 (May 10, 2001), approval of the New York‘s attainment demonstration and related provisions for the New 

York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 57247 (November 14, 2001), approval of the VMT 

offset plan for the Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment area; 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005), approval of the 

Washington, D.C. area‘s 1-hour attainment demonstration and related provisions; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 2005), 

approval of Atlanta‘s VMT plan.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 118

the same transportation activity projections used to develop the RFP and attainment 

demonstration and transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets in the South Coast 

2007 AQMP. South Coast 2007 AQMP, p. 6-23 and 6-27.

As described above in Section II.C, the South Coast 2007 AQMP includes TCMs

developed by SCAG, the local MPO, which are described in Appendix IV-C – Regional 

Transportation Strategy and Control Measures. TCMs included in the South Coast 2007 AQMP 

were developed to meet the requirements of CAA Sections 182(d)(1)(A) and 108(f) and include 

the capital-based and non-capital-based facilities, projects, and programs contained in the area‘s 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and programmed through the Regional Transportation 

Implementation Program (RTIP) process. SCAG determined that there was no combination of 

reasonable measures that would expedite attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the 

South Coast. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV-C.

Table F-1. On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions in the South Coast, 2002-

2023 (tons per summer day) 1,2

Year Baseline Remaining

VOC NOx VOC NOx

2002 360 611 360 611

2003 341 595 341 595

2004 321 579 321 579

2005 302 563 302 563

2006 273 518 273 518

2007 243 472 243 472

2008 214 441 210 438

2009 199 419 195 413

2010 186 379 164 330

2011 176 355 154 291

2012 166 331 144 252

2013 157 309 135 219

2014 148 287 126 191

2015 142 269 119 174

2016 135 250 113 162

2017 129 232 109 160

2018 124 216 101 135

2019 119 200 96 120

2020 114 184 93 112

2021 110 176 91* 78

2022 107 169 88* 52

2023 103 161 86 27

2024 95 146 76 24

1These values were incorrectly listed as 88 for 2021 and 85 for 2022 in the 2007 South Coast AQMP. See Letter, 

Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, SCAMQD, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, 

EPA Region 9, dated August 12, 2011 in the docket for today‘s action.

2

‖Baseline‖ emissions account for controls adopted prior to the 2007 AQMP. ―Remaining‖ emissions include the 

impacts of economic growth and implementation of the plan‘s control strategy.

Source: South Coast 2007 AQMP, Chapter 6, Table 6-12.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 119

3.Proposed Action

In September 2011, we proposed to find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP, as corrected 

on August 12, 2011, meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include 

transportation control strategies and TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips. We also proposed to find that the South Coast 

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Therefore, we proposed to find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 

to include strategies and measures to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment. Finally, we 

proposed to find that the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP consistent with 

all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements. Therefore, we also proposed to find that 

the SIP meets requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control 

strategies and TCMs as necessary to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed 

to meet the applicable RFP requirement.

At the time of our September proposal, the Ninth Circuit had yet to issue its mandate in 

the Association of Irritated Residents case, and EPA had not adopted the court‘s interpretation 

for the reasons set forth in the Agency‘s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by the 

court. If the court denied the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issued its mandate before EPA 

issued a final rule on the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP, then we anticipated that we would not be 

able to finalize approval of the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP with respect to the first element 

(i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in our proposed action, and 

in the alternative to the proposed approval, we simultaneously proposed to disapprove the South 

Coast 2007 Ozone SIP with respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan‘s failure to include sufficient transportation control 

strategies and TCMs to offset the emissions from growth in VMT.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

Because both VOC and NOx emissions from on-road motor vehicles decline steadily 

over the entire time period covered by the South Coast 2007 AQMP, based on the emissions data 

presented in Appendix III of the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the supplemental information in 

Table 6-12 on page 6-27 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, as amended by the information we 

received on August 12, 2011, the plan need not include additional transportation control 

strategies and TCMs to offset growth in motor vehicle emissions from growth in VMT; 

therefore, we propose to find that the South Coast 2007 AQMP, as corrected on August 12, 2011, 

meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies 

and TCMs sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of 

vehicle trips.

94, 95

 

94 CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) only requires that VOC emissions decline year to year over the period covered by the

SIP. See General Preamble at 13521.

95 In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit held that section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA unambiguously requires States to adopt transportation 

control measures and strategies whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been 

had vehicle miles traveled not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has 

filed a petition for rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 (consolidated), Docket No. 35,

Petition for Panel Rehearing. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 120

In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, with respect to the first element, section 182(d)(1)(A) 

of the CAA requires States to adopt transportation control measures and strategies whenever 

vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle miles 

traveled not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has 

filed a petition for rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 (consolidated), 

Docket Entry 41-1, Petition for Panel Rehearing.

The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its mandate in the Association of Irritated Residents

case, and EPA has not adopted the court‘s interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency‘s 

petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by the court. Therefore, we find that the 2007 

South Coast 8-Hour Ozone plan, as corrected on August 12, 2011, meets the requirement in 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control strategies and TCMs sufficient to 

offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips.

As discussed in section II.C. and II.D. above, we find that the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Therefore, 

we find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include strategies and 

measures to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment.

As discussed above in section II.E., we find that the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

provides for RFP consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements. 

Therefore, we also find that the SIP meets requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include 

transportation control strategies and TCMs as necessary to provide (along with other measures) 

the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Transportation Control Strategies 

and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from Vehicle Miles 

Travelled Increases, to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the South Coast 2007 AQMP

We proposed to approve the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) at 76 FR 57872, 57890. We also proposed in the 

alternative to disapprove the SIP with respect to eh first element (i.e., offsetting emissions 

growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the SIP‘s failure to include sufficient transportation 

control strategies and measures to offset the emissions from growth in VMT should the 9th

Circuit Court deny the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issue its mandate in AIR before we 

finalized our action. As noted above, the Court has not yet issued its mandate.96

We received comments objecting to our proposed finding that the South Coast 2007 8-

hour ozone plan meets all three elements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). We have carefully 

considered the issues raised by the commenters and responded to the comment in Section III, 

Response to Comments. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the transportation 

 

96 We also stated in the proposal that if EPA were to finalize the proposed disapproval, the area would be eligible for 

a protective finding under the transportation conformity rule because the submitted SIP contains adopted control 

measures and enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions reduction requirements for RFP and 

attainment. 40 CFR § 93.120(a)(3). See 76 FR 57872, 57890, fn. 32.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 121

control strategies and transportation control measures demonstration in the South Coast 2007 8-

hour ozone plan is consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 122

G. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as moderate

or above must include in their SIPs contingency measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional controls to be implemented in the event the area 

fails to meet a RFP milestone or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date. These 

contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures that are ready to be implemented

quickly upon failure to meet the milestones or attainment. The SIP should contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate 

that the measures will be implemented without significant further action by the State or by EPA. 

See 68 FR 32802, at 32837 and 70 FR 71612, at 71650 (proposed and final ozone 

implementation rule). Contingency measures should be submitted along with the attainment

demonstration which is due by June 15, 2007 for areas designated in 2004. See 70 FR 71612, at 

71651.

Additional guidance concerning the CAA contingency measure provisions is found in the 

General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, at 13510–13512 and 13520. The guidance indicates that states 

should adopt and submit contingency measures sufficient to provide a three percent emissions

reduction from the adjusted RFP base year. EPA concludes this level of reduction is generally 

acceptable to offset emission increases while States are correcting their SIPs. These reductions 

should be beyond what is needed to meet the attainment and/or RFP requirement. States may use 

reductions in either of the two precursors to ozone formation—VOC or NOx —to meet the 

contingency measure requirements. General Preamble at 13520. States may also use a 

combination of NOx and VOC reductions to meet the requirement. See General Preamble at 

13520, footnote 6. 

EPA has also provided guidance that contingency measures may be implemented early, 

i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date.

97 Consistent with this policy, States are allowed to 

use excess reductions from already adopted measures to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) contingency measure requirement. This is because the purpose of contingency 

measures is to provide extra reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment, and that will 

provide a cushion while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet the required 

milestone or attainment. Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from implementing such 

measures before they are triggered. This approach has been approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. 

See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 

2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). In the only adjudicated challenge to this 

approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 

71651.

Furthermore, states can also use federal measures that result in additional emission 

reductions beyond those needed for attainment or ROP in an area as contingency measures for a 

failure to attain or to meet the ROP requirements. EPA has approved the use of federal measures 

 

97 Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors, ―Early 

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,‖ August 13, 

1993.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 123

as part of contingency measures in several EPA actions approving 1-hour ozone SIPs (62 FR 

15844, April 3, 1997), (62 FR 66279, December 18, 1997), and (66 FR 30811, June 8, 2001), (66 

FR 586 and 66 FR 634, January 3, 2001).

In addition, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to ―approve provisions of an 

implementation plan for an Extreme area which anticipate development of new control 

techniques or improvement of existing control techniques, and an attainment demonstration 

based on such provisions,‖ if the State meets certain criteria. CAA section 182(e)(5). Such pan 

provisions may include enforceable commitments to submit, at a later date, contingency 

measures for failure to attain under CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to the contingency 

measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies approved under section 182(e)(5) do 

not achieve planned reductions. These contingency measures must be submitted no later than 

three years before the proposed implementation of the plan provisions and approved or 

disapproved by EPA in accordance with CAA section 110. Id.

States that rely on the new technology provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5) to 

demonstrate attainment in an extreme ozone nonattainment area must submit enforceable 

commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures to be implemented should the 

anticipated technologies not achieve the planned reductions. These contingency measures shall 

be submitted no later than three years before the reductions are needed from the new 

technologies to demonstrate RFP or attainment. We discuss the section 182(e)(5) contingency 

measures in section II.C. of this TSD.

2. Contingency Measures in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

The contingency measures for the South Coast nonattainment area are described in 

Chapter 9 of the South Coast 2007 AQMP, discussed in more detail in Appendix IV-A, section 

2, of the AQMP, and also discussed in Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy as updated on 

February 1, 2008. The provisions were again updated in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix 

A, Table A-1. 

To provide for contingency measures for failure to make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus 

NOx reductions in the RFP demonstration See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Attachment A, p. A-1.

See also Table G-1 below and Table E-2 in this TSD.

Table G-1. Excess NOx Reduction in RFP Demonstration Available for Use as 

Contingency Measures, South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan, as Revised July 21, 2011 

(tons per summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

NOx adjusted base year 1024 1024 1024 1024 1024

Contingency requirement 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

Excess NOx reductions available 

for contingency measures in the 

milestone year, after RFP and 

contingency met (%) (line S in 

Table E-2)

34.3% 39.5% 40.1% 40.0% 39.9%
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 124

To provide in part for contingency measures for failure to attain, the SIP relies in part on 

the additional incremental reductions resulting from fleet turnover in the year 2024. For the 

South Coast, these reductions are estimated by CARB to be 2 tpd of NOx and 1 tpd of VOC. See 

CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 2. CARB has submitted an 

enforceable commitment to submit, no later than 2020, additional contingency measures under 

CAA section 182(e)(5) that meet the requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA 

section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated longterm measures approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. CARB 

Resolution 11-22, July 21, 2011, p. 4. 

3. Proposed Action

In September 2011, we proposed to approve the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan‘s 

RFP demonstration. As seen from the RFP demonstration in Table E-2, and in Table G-2, there 

are sufficient excess reductions of NOx in each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the 

next RFP percentage reduction requirement to provide the three percent of adjusted baseline 

emissions reductions needed to meet the RFP contingency measure requirement for 2011, 2014, 

2017, and 2020. 

Based on our determination that the State has satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for 

reliance on long-term measures as part of the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 8-

Hour Ozone SIP, we also proposed to approve CARB‘s enforceable commitment to submit no 

later than 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) which meet the 

requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to 

contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures approved 

pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions.

4. Evaluation and Conclusion

Contingency Measures for Failure to Make RFP. As discussed in section II.E, we are approving

the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan‘s RFP demonstration. As seen from the RFP 

demonstration in Table E-2, and in Table G-2, there are sufficient excess reductions of NOx in 

each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the next RFP percentage reduction requirement 

to provide the three percent of adjusted baseline emissions reductions needed to meet the RFP 

contingency measure requirement for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. 

No RFP contingency measures are needed for 2008, since the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision 

demonstrates that the South Coast has already met its 2008 milestone. See Table E-2 above. As 

a result, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP benchmark would never be 

triggered and thus are not needed.

Contingency Measures for Failure to Attain. The additional incremental reductions that will 

occur in 2024 (the year after the attainment year) from the continuing implementation of both 

on- and off-road motor vehicle controls may be used to meet the contingency measure 

requirement for failure to attain. For the South Coast, these reductions are estimated by CARB to 

be 2 tpd of NOx and 1 tpd of VOC. See Table G-2 and CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Supplement, 

Attachment 2.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 125

Based on our determination that the State has satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for 

reliance on long-term measures as part of the attainment demonstration in the South Coast 8-

Hour Ozone SIP, we are approving CARB‘s enforceable commitment to submit no later than 

2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) which meet the 

requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to 

contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures approved 

pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions.98

Accordingly, we are approving the RFP and attainment contingency measures in the 

South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), based in part on 

CARB‘s commitment to submit by 2020 additional contingency measures meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(e)(5). Following the State‘s submittal of these 

additional contingency measures, EPA will approve or disapprove the provisions in accordance 

with CAA section 110. 

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Contingency Measure Provisions

We received no comments on our proposed approval of the RFP and attainment 

contingency measures. No issues were raised that changed our finding that the RFP and 

attainment contingency measures in the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan are consistent with 

the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

 

98 These contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions reduction 

progress continues to be made if attainment is not achieved and additional planning by the State is needed. See

General Preamble at 13524.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 126

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

conform to the SIP‘s goals of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP‘s 

goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) 

worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any 

interim milestone.

Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to EPA‘s transportation conformity rule, 

codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area‘s regional 

transportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the 

applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) contained in all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, 

or RFP SIP should establish budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP year or the last 

year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors.

8-hour ozone attainment and RFP plans identify budgets for the ozone precursors VOC 

and NOx. See 40 CFR § 93.102(b)(2)(i). 

Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted but not-yet approved SIP, EPA must first 

determine that the budgets are adequate or approve the budgets. Submitted budgets that have not 

been found to be adequate or approved may not be used in conformity determinations. In order 

for us to find the budgets adequate and to approve them, the submittal must meet the conformity 

adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all relevant 

SIP requirements. To meet these requirements, the budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

control measures contained in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. See 

40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan

a. Budgets Submitted in South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted November 2007)

As submitted in November 2007, the 2007 South Coast AQMP included a set of ozone 

precursor budgets for VOC and NOx for RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 and

attainment year budgets for 2023. See CARB Resolution 07-05, which revised the budgets in the 

2007 South Coast AQMP as adopted by the SCAQMD, and which was included in the 

November 2007 submittal. We refer to these budgets as the ―original‖ budgets. 

b. Budgets Submitted in Revised South Coast 2007 AQMP (submitted April 2008)

On April 30, 2008, CARB submitted a SIP revision that replaced the original set of 8-

hour ozone budgets with two new sets of budgets (―replacement‖ budgets). One set of the 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 127

replacement budgets is referred to as ―SIP-based‖ budgets, and the other set is referred to as 

―baseline‖ budgets. In its April 30, 2008 submittal, CARB requests that EPA give primary 

consideration to the ―SIP-based‖ budgets and only find the ―baseline‖ budgets to be adequate if 

EPA could find the ―SIP-based‖ budgets adequate in their entirety.

The replacement budgets submitted on April 30, 2008 differed from the original budgets 

in that they reflected the EPA-approved EMFAC2007 motor vehicle emission factor model (see 

73 FR 3464, January 18, 2008) rather than the District‘s CEPA emission factor model, which had 

been used for the original budgets. The ―SIP-based‖ budgets reflected emissions reductions from 

rules adopted by October 2006 and also from control measures CARB expected to adopt in 

regulatory form in the future. The ―baseline‖ budgets differed from the ―SIP-based‖ budgets by 

excluding emission reductions from control measures in the 2007 State Strategy that had not 

been adopted in regulatory form by October 2006. Moreover, the ―baseline‖ budgets were 

established for RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020, whereas the ―SIP-based‖ budgets 

were established for the RFP years, the attainment year 2023, and the year 2030. 

c. Updated Budgets Submitted in 2011 Ozone SIP Revision

CARB submitted updated budgets for the South Coast and their documentation in its 

2011 Ozone SIP Revision. See 2011Ozone SIP Revision, Appendices A and C. The updated 

budgets are for VOC and NOx for the RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020, and the 

attainment year of 2023. No budgets were included for the RFP year of 2008 because there are 

no applicable conformity analysis years prior to 2011. Also no budgets were included for 2030. 

Attainment SIPs are not required to include budgets for years after the attainment year. 

Additional information associated with the motor vehicle emission budget calculations was 

provided in Attachment 1 of the CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement.

99 Additional 

documentation on how these budgets were calculated is provided in electronic mails dated 

August 9th and August 11th, 2011 from Douglas Ito, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region 

9.100 These budgets were updated to account for revisions to the emissions inventories for the 

truck and bus category, and to reflect CARB‘s current rulemaking calendar. These revised 

updated budgets are shown in Table H-1 below. 

Table H-1. Summary of Revised Ozone Precursor Budgets for the South Coast 8-

hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (tons per summer day), July 2011

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx

South 

Coast Air 

Basin

172 328 136 277 119 224 108 185 99 140

Source: ―8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ 

Appendix C, adopted July 21, 2011, posted at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.

 

99 See Letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, EPA 

Region 9, dated July 10, 2011.

100 See Electronic Mails from Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, CARB, to 

Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, dated August 9, 2011, and August 11, 2011.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 128

Table H-2 shows how the revised updated budgets were calculated. This calculation is 

described in Appendix C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. The baseline inventories are the initial 

SIP on-road motor vehicle emissions inventories in Appendix III of the 2007 South Coast 

AQMP as submitted in November 2007. The budgets continue to be based on the same planning 

assumptions that were used in the original South Coast 2007 AQMP.

The conformity budgets are calculated by taking these baseline inventories, subtracting 

reductions from certain pre-2007 AQMP measures (―existing measures‖) and reductions from 

measures adopted after the South Coast 2007 AQMP was adopted as well as measures and other 

inventory adjustments included in CARB‘s new heavy duty diesel truck model (collectively, 

―new measures‖). The final budget is the resulting total rounded to the next highest ton.

Existing measures are:

AB 1493 Greenhouse Gas standards

On-road portion of the Carl Moyer program

New measures are:

Smog Check improvements (low pressure evap, cutpoints, light and medium duty 

diesels, smoke test) (NOx and VOC)

Reformulated gasoline (VOC only)

Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Model (NOx and VOC)

o New HDDT inventory 

o HDDT Recession Impacts

o In-Use HDDT Rule

o HDDT Chip Reflash

o HDDT Public Fleet and Solid Waste Rules

o HDDT Idling Rules

Table H-2. Calculation of the Revised Updated Ozone Precursor Budgets for the 

South Coast 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (tons per summer day), July 2011

South Coast Air Basin 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC

Baseline Emissions 

(EMFAC2007 Default) 176.0 150.1 131.1 117.0 106.1

Adjustments for Adopted 

State and Local On-Road 

Measures

-0.3 -0.6 -0.9 -1.1 -1.5

State Strategy- On-road 

Reductions -4.5 -14.2 -11.5 -8.5 -6.2

Sum 171.2 135.2 118.8 107.4 98.4

Budgets 172 136 119 108 99
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 129

NOx

Baseline Emissions 

(EMFAC2007 Default) 367.7 299.9 243.5 200.2 171.8

Adjustments for Adopted 

State and Local On-Road 

Measures

-1.4 -1.4 -1.0 -0.1 -0.1

State Strategy - On-road 

Reductions -38.9 -22.3 -18.8 -15.6 -31.9

Sum 327.5 276.3 223.6 184.5 139.8

Budgets 328 277 224 185 140

Note: Budgets are rounded up to the nearest ton.

3. May 6, 2008 Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

On May 6, 2008, we notified CARB that we had found the ―SIP-based‖ ozone budgets 

for the 2007 South Coast AQMP, as submitted on April 30, 2008, did not meet certain adequacy 

requirements under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and concluded that they were inadequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. See letter and enclosures, dated May 6, 2008 from Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, a 

copy of which has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. The finding is available on 

EPA‘s transportation conformity website, 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm

In our May 2008 adequacy determination, we found the ―baseline‖ ozone budgets for the 

RFP years 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 to be adequate. Generally, we found the ―SIPbased‖ budgets to be inadequate because they reflected control measures not yet adopted in 

regulatory form and thus not adequately quantified or supported by the plan. In contrast, we 

found the ―baseline‖ ozone budgets to be consistent with the plan‘s RFP demonstration and to be 

based on adopted mobile source regulations that have already been implemented. Our notice of 

adequacy/inadequacy was published on May 15, 2008 at 73 FR 28110 (corrected on June 18, 

2008 at 73 FR 34837) and was effective on May 30, 2008. These budgets are currently being 

used by the MPOs and DOT in transportation conformity determinations. 

4. September 2011 Proposed Action on the Budgets Submitted in 2011 

As part of its review of the approvability of the budgets, EPA evaluated the revised 

budgets submitted in 2011 using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318(e)(4) and (5). As 

documented in Table H-3 below, we found that they meet each of the adequacy criteria. As 

documented in this TSD, we have completed our detailed review of the South Coast 2007 8-

hour ozone plan and supplemental submittals including CARB‘s 2011Ozone SIP Revision and 

are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8-hour 

ozone plan. We have also reviewed the budgets submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision 

and have found that they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations, were based 

on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented, and meet all other 

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in 40 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 130

CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and(5). Therefore, in September 2011, we proposed to approve the 2011, 

2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 budgets shown in Table H-1.

EPA is not required under its Transportation Conformity rule to find budgets adequate 

prior to proposing approval of them. We did, however, complete the adequacy review of these 

budgets prior to our final action on the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan. We posted the 

budgets on September 19, 2011, and the comment period on the adequacy finding closed on 

October 19, 2011. We received no comments on our adequacy posting. 

5. Evaluation, Conclusion, and Final Action on the Revised 2011 Budgets

As part of our review of the approvability of the budgets, EPA has evaluated the revised 

budgets submitted in 2011 using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318(e)(4) and (5).In 

addition, we posted the revised budgets on EPA‘s adequacy review web page on September 19, 

2011 and held a public comment period until October 19,2011. No comments were received on 

the adequacy posting. As documented in Table H-3 below, we found that the revised budgets

meet each of the adequacy criteria. 

As documented in this TSD, we have completed our detailed review of the South Coast 

2007 8-hour ozone plan and supplemental submittals including CARB‘s 2011Ozone SIP 

Revision and are approving the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 

Ozone Plan. We have also reviewed the budgets submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision 

and have found that they are consistent with the RFP and attainment demonstrations, were based 

on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented, and meet all other 

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in 40 

CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and(5). Therefore, we are approving the 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 

budgets shown in Table H-1.

On the effective date of the final approval of these budgets, SCAG and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation are required to use the revised budgets in transportation 

conformity determinations. For these conformity determinations, the motor vehicle emissions 

from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and compared to the budgets

at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the plan, for example emissions should be 

rounded to the rounded to the next highest ton (e.g. 11 tpd). Also, due to the nature of these 

budgets (combining reductions from control measures related to the in-use truck and bus rule, 

some of which are included in EMFAC2011), the MPOs will need to show the off-model 

emission reductions associated with the individual control measures incorporated into the 

budgets, from CARB, for the appropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations so 

that they can include these reductions in regional emissions analyses per 40 CFR § 93.122. 

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

and EPA Response

We received one comment on our proposed approval of the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan. CARB has requested that we limit the 

duration of our approval of the revised motor vehicle emission budgets submitted on July 29, 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 131

2011 for the South Coast Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin until the effective date of a 

future adequacy finding on budgets that replace these budgets.101

The transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of the budgets. See

40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a state‘s request to limit our approval if a 

state adequately addresses three factors. First, the state must acknowledge and explain why the 

budgets under consideration have become outdated or deficient; second, the state must make a 

commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update. Finally, the state must 

request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to the point in time when the new budgets 

have been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 

See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of budgets in certain 

California SIPs)

The comment letter submitted by CARB does not address all of these factors; therefore, 

we cannot address CARB‘s request at this time. When the State has addressed these factors, EPA 

intends to propose to limit the duration of our approval of the revised budgets in the 2011 Ozone 

SIP revision and prove the public an opportunity to comment. The duration of the approval of 

the budgets would not be limited until we completed the rulemaking initiated by that proposal 

No issues were raised that changed our finding that the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

in the South Coast 2007 8-hour ozone plan are consistent with the applicable requirements of the 

CAA and EPA guidance. 

 

101 See letter, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, CARB, October 17, 2011. In the 

same comment letter, CARB also requested that we limit the duration of our recent approval of the PM2.5 motor 

vehicle budgets for both areas, consistent with EPA‘s prior actions on California‘s SIPs.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 132

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 133

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(i)

The plan was endorsed by the 

Governor (or designee) and was 

subject to a public hearing.

The District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held 

a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on June 1, 2007. Documentation 

accompanying the AQMP describes a public and agency outreach effort. See, e.g., the 

SCAQMD‘s Response to Comments on the Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan 

(February 2007), submitted by CARB on November 28, 2007 as enclosure I-E, 

describing nine regional workshops held from October 24 through December 6, 2006 

to discuss the draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) released on October 

10, 2006. The November 28, 2007 transmittal submitting the South Coast 2007 

AQMP was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s 

designee. The transmittal letter indicates that CARB formally adopted the plan on 

September 27, 2007 through a Board Resolution (07-28). CARB released the plan on 

April 26, 2007 (appendices on May 7, 2007) and requested public comments by June 

21, 2007or at a public hearing held on June 22, 2007 and again on September 27, 

2007.

The sequence of public meetings held to discuss the elements of the draft State 

Strategy for California‘s 2007 SIP (State Strategy) is described in the CARB staff 

report developed for the CARB Board‘s consideration prior to adoption of the State 

Strategy. CARB also provide the required public notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its September 27, 2007 public hearing on the South Coast 2007 

AQMP. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the 2007 Air 

Quality Management Plan for Attaining the Federal 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 

Standards in the South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley. See 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/ma/2007/ma092707.htm and 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/nonreg/scsip07.pdf.

CARB also provide the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and 

public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy. See 

CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for 

California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of a Proposed 

Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 

SSMh 242009
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 134

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

The 2009 State Strategy update, which updates the 2007 State Strategy, was 

submitted on August 12, 2011 via transmittal letter from CARB‘s Executive Officer, 

James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee.

CARB also provided a public comment period and held a public hearing prior to its 

adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision on July 21, 2011. The SIP was made 

available for public review on June 20, 2011. See 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/2011_ozone_sip_revision_notice.pdf for 

the public hearing documentation. The 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, which updates the 

South Coast 2007 AQMP and the 2007 State Strategy, was submitted on July 29, 2011 

via transmittal letter from CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the 

Governor‘s designee.

Each of the five SIP submittals that comprise the South Coast 8-hour ozone attainment 

plan include proof of publication for notices of SCAQMD and CARB public hearings 

as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 135

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(ii)

The plan was developed through 

consultation with federal, state and 

local agencies; full implementation 

plan documentation was provided 

and EPA‘s stated concerns, if any, 

were addressed.

Y

Consultation with federal, state and local agencies was undertaken; this consultation 

took place with the SCAG interagency consultation working group Members of the 

consultation group include: EPA, FHWA, FTA, CARB, Caltrans, the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and the area‘s Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO), SCAG and county transportation agencies. EPA received a 

copy of the draft 2011 Progress Report, the South Coast 2007 AQMP and draft State 

Strategy but provided no written comments. However, in response to EPA‘s requests 

for additional information, CARB did provide Attachment A included in a May 18, 

2011 letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy 

Director, EPA Region 9. The revised budgets are posted at the following URL: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. 

Furthermore, in response to EPA questions, ARB provided additional information via 

an August 10, 2011 letter sent by Lynn Terry to Deborah Jordan and emails from 

Doug Ito to Elizabeth Adams on August 9th and August 11th, EPA questions were 

addressed by the additional technical clarifications on the budgets provided in 

documents attached with these communications.

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(iii)

The motor vehicle emission budgets 

are clearly identified and precisely 

quantified.

Y

The motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified in Appendix A (Table A-2) of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision and further described in Attachment2 of the August 10, 2011 letter and the 

additional technical information provided by CARB.. These budgets reflect control 

measures that were already adopted at the time the CARB adopted the 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revision on July 21, 2011. 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, p. 3. CARB 

did not update the budget for 2008 because the 2008 budgets are longer needed for 

any conformity determination in the South Coast nonattainment area. 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision, Appendix C. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 136

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(iv)

The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emission sources, is 

consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and attainment.

Y

EPA has preliminarily concluded that the budgets for the year 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 

and 2023 when considered together with all other emission sources and controls, are 

consistent with the requirement to demonstrate RFP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. This finding is based on a thorough review of the revised RFP 

demonstrations in Appendix A (Table A-1) of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, July 21, 

2011. As documented in Section II.G. of this TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the 

revised RFP demonstration.

EPA has preliminarily concluded that the budgets for the year 2023 when considered 

together with all other emission sources and controls, are consistent with the 

requirement to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. This finding is based on review of the updated attainment demonstration in 

the 2011Ozone SIP Revision, dated July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.C. of

this TSD, EPA is proposing to approve the revised attainment demonstration.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 137

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(v)

The plan shows a clear relationship 

among the emissions budget(s), 

control measures and the total

emissions inventory.

Y

The emission inventories for all point, area, and mobile sources are contained in 

Chapter 3 of SCAQMD‘s Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 

control strategy that is relied upon for the ―SIP-based‖ budgets is set out in Chapter 4 

of SCAQMD‘s Final 2007 AQMP and Appendix IV-A, and in Attachment A of 

CARB‘s Resolution 07-28 dated September 27, 2007 adopting the 2007 State 

Strategy. See also 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/southcoast/scstaffreport.pdf) and 

appendices. The ―offmodel‖ adjustments to the baseline inventory, as referenced in 

the footnote to the motor vehicle emissions budgets, for the motor vehicle emission 

budgets, are available on pages 73 (NOx), 76 (ROG) and 79 (PM2.5) of Appendix A, 

the Emission Inventory Output Tables, of the May 7, 2007 update to the Revised 

Statewide Strategy for California's 2007 SIP. The submittal dated April 30, 2008 made 

changes to the budgets to reflect the use of EMFAC2007, but the changes (relative to 

those calculated using SCAQMD‘s CEPA model) were minor and the emissions

estimates remained consistent with the RFP demonstrations for 8-hour ozone in the

2007 South Coast SIP, as supplemented for 8-hour ozone RFP on February 1, 2008.

The reductions from individual existing measures used in the budgets are also 

described in more detail in Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B, as well as in the 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, and additional technical information transmitted 

from ARB in their August 10 letter and emails on August 9th and 11th.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________ __________ ________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 138

Table H-3

Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the 2011 Progress Report

August 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(vi)

Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy or maintenance plans 

explain and document any changes to 

any previous submitted budgets and 

control measures; impacts on point 

and area source emissions; any 

changes to established safety margins 

(see §93.101 for definition), and 

reasons for the changes (including the 

basis for any changes to emission 

factors or estimates of vehicle miles 

traveled).

Y

Prior to submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the most recent ozone SIP for the South 

Coast nonattainment area was the South Coast 2007 AQMP, which addressed 1-hour 

ozone and other pollutants. EPA found the budgets from the 2003 South Coast AQMP 

adequate in 2004 (see 69 FR 15325). The motor vehicle emission inventories in the 

2003 AQMP are based on the EMFAC2002 motor vehicle emissions model, and 

motor vehicle emission inventories in the South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan and 

subsequent updates were prepared using the most recent version of the model, 

EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA for use in SIPs and conformity 

determinations on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464). This notice approving 

EMFAC2007 details the basis for the changes to the emission factors. 

The MVEB being reviewed here are for the 8-hour ozone standards and do not 

constitute a revision to the MVEB previously submitted in the 2003 AQMP because 

that Plan addressed different ozone standards.

CARB submitted revisions to the motor vehicle emission budgets in the South Coast 

2007 Ozone Plan as part of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. The revisions removed 

some control measures that were included in the prior RFP and attainment budgets 

(e.g. South Coast AB923 measures), included revisions to the Heavy Duty Diesel 

Truck inventory using ARB‘s Heavy Duty Truck Model and adjusted the reductions 

associated with smog check and reformulated gasoline.

Sec. 

93.118(e)(5)

EPA has reviewed the State‘s 

compilation of public comments and 

response to comments that are 

required to be submitted with any 

implementation plan.

Y

SCAQMD compiled public comments submitted during the June 1, 2007 public 

hearing and during the public comment periods. These comments and the responses 

are included in the February 2007 ―Response to Comments‖ 

(http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07/aqmp/modified/Response_to_Comments.pdf). ARB 

compiled public comments submitted during the September 27, 2007, November 15, 

2007, April 24, 2008, and July 21, 2011 public hearings and during the public 

comment periods. These comments (if any) and the responses are included in adoption 

hearing transcripts (http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/meetings.htm). We have reviewed 

the compilation of comments and responses and find the responses to be acceptable. 

No issues that might have affected our adequacy finding remain unanswered.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 139

I. Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas

Title I, subpart D of the CAA includes a number of planning and control requirements 

applicable to extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the South Coast. Below, we discuss the 

current status of each of these requirements for informational purposes only. We are not 

proposing any action related to these provisions.

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 as serious or above to implement an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program in those areas. The requirements for those programs are provided in 

section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.351.

CAA section 182(a)(2)(B) directs EPA to publish updated guidance for state I/M 

programs, taking into consideration the findings of EPA's audits and investigations of these 

programs. The Act further directs that each area required to have an I/M program incorporate this 

guidance into its SIP. Based on these CAA requirements, EPA promulgated I/M regulations on 

November 5, 1992 (57 FR 51950), as corrected at 58 FR 59366 (November 9, 1993) and at 59 

FR 32343 (June 23, 1994). EPA's I/M regulations are codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S 

(―Inspection/ Maintenance Program Requirements‖), sections 51.350 through 51.373.

The I/M regulations establish minimum performance standards for ―basic‖ and 

―enhanced‖ I/M programs as well as requirements for the following: network type and program 

evaluation; adequate tools and resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test 

procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via diagnostic 

inspection; motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement 

against contractors, stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector 

training and licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection; improving 

repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP revisions; and 

implementation deadlines.

The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since 

EPA's initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 CAA amendments. The 

performance standard for enhanced I/M programs was established in 1992 pursuant to the 1990 

CAA amendments and is based on a high-technology transient test, known as IM240, for 1986 

and later model year vehicles, including a transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating 

hydrocarbons (HC), NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity 

(pressure) test and an evaporative system performance (purge) test.

The South Coast area has been subject to the enhanced I/M requirements of section 

182(c)(3) since the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Under California law, the Bureau 

of Automotive Repair (BAR) is responsible for developing and implementing the smog check 

program. CARB submitted a SIP revision for the State‘s basic and enhanced I/M program on 

January 22, 1996, and we approved this SIP revision on January 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 1150).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 140

CARB submitted a SIP revision on February 24, 2006 (supplemented on August 11, 2006 

with additional technical information) showing the enhanced I/M program, as it applies in South 

Coast, meets EPA‘s performance standard for ―low‖ enhanced I/M programs for CO. We 

approved this SIP revision on May 11, 2007 (see 72 FR 26718) as part of our redesignation of 

the South Coast area to attainment for CO.

CARB submitted additional SIP revisions on June 5, 2009 relating to the State‘s basic 

and enhanced I/M program. On July 1, 2010 at 75 FR 38023, EPA approved California‘s 

inspection and maintenance program as meeting the requirements of the CAA and applicable 

EPA regulations for enhanced I/M programs. 

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program

As an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standards, the South Coast 

nonattainment area was covered under the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. See 

CAA section 211(k)(10)(D). As an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, South Coast continues to 

be covered under the federal RFP program. See 40 CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685. 

California has its own RFG program (California Phase III RFG (CaRFG3)), which also applies 

in the South Coast nonattainment area.

On June 15, 2004, the State submitted a series of amendments to the reformulated 

gasoline rules as approved by EPA in 1995. Specifically, on August 3, 2000, the State adopted 

amendments that established the CaRFG3 standards and program, including revisions leading to 

the phase out of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) as a gasoline oxygenate. Starting March 21, 

2001, the State adopted a series of rulemakings to amend the CA RFG rules regarding certain 

limits for denatured ethanol used in California gasoline and the model for ―California 

reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending‖ or ―CARBOB.‖ These amendments also 

allowed certain small refiners to offset excess emissions from CaRFG3 with additional emission 

reductions from lowering the aromatic hydrocarbon content of diesel fuel. On May 1, 2003, the 

State adopted amendments to the CA RFG rules that updated test methods used to comply with 

CaRFG3 regulations and also delayed the phase out of MTBE by one year to avoid disrupting the 

supply of gasoline in California.

On February 3, 2009, the State submitted revisions to the reformulated gasoline rules. 

These revisions were adopted by the State on November 18, 2004. Among other things, the 

revisions updated the procedure for evaluating alternative specifications for CaRFG3 using the 

California Predictive Model. Additional new rules and revisions were adopted by the State on 

August 7, 2008. Among other things these rules updated the California Predictive Model in the 

CaRFG3 regulations to mitigate permeation emissions associated with the use of ethanol as a 

fuel additive. EPA approved the June 15, 2004 and February 3, 2009 SIP revisions in a final 

rulemaking dated May 12, 2010 (see 75 FR 26653).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 141

3. New Source Review Rule

CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) required states to develop SIP revisions containing permit 

programs within two years after the enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 for each of its 

ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include requirements for permits in 

accordance with CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction and operation of each new 

or modified major stationary source for ozone in the area. See also CAA section 182(e). EPA‘s 

implementing regulations for nonattainment new source review (NSR) are in 40 CFR 51.165, 

and guidance specific to ozone nonattainment areas was provided in the preamble to the 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612, at 71671-71684.

New Source Review (NSR) for point sources of ozone precursors is addressed through 

the SCAQMD‘s NSR and RECLAIM programs (Regulations XIII and XX, respectively). We 

approved the District‘s NSR program in a direct final rule on December 4, 1996 (see 61 FR 

64291, 64 FR 13514 (March 19,1999), and 71 FR 35157 (June 19, 206)) as satisfying the NSR 

requirements in title I, part D of the CAA for extreme ozone nonattainment areas, and the 

RECLAIM program most recently on August 12, 2011 (see 76 FR 50128). Table I-1 shows the 

adoption, submittal, and SIP approval status of SCAQMD‘s NSR rules. 

Table I-1

Adoption, Submittal, and SIP Approval Status of SCAQMD’s NSR Rules

(REGULATION 13 - New Source Review)

Rule Adoption Submittal 

to EPA

Approval 

Date

Federal Register 

Citation

1301 General 12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1302 Definitions

12/07/95 03/10/98 03/19/99 64 FR 13514

1303 Requirements

05/10/96 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1304 Exemptions from 

Regulation XIII

06/14/96 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1305 Special Permit 

Provisions

07/10/84 01/29/85 50 FR 3906

1306 Emission 

Calculations

06/14/96 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1309 Emission 

Reduction Credits

12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1309.1 Priority 

Reserve

05/03/2002 12/23/2002 06/19/06 71 FR 35157

1310 Analysis, Notice, 

and Reporting

12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291

1313 Permits to 

Operate

12/07/95 08/28/96 12/04/96 61 FR 64291
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 142

4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program

CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 require states to submit for EPA approval a SIP 

revision that includes measures to implement the Clean Fuel Vehicle Program in serious and 

above nonattainment areas. In particular, SIPs for these areas with 1980 populations of 250,000 

or more must establish a clean-fuel vehicle program for centrally-fuelled fleets (referred to as a 

Clean-Fuel Fleet (CFF) program). Under the CFF program, a specified percentage of vehicles 

purchased by fleet operators for covered fleets shall be clean-fuel vehicles and shall use clean 

alternative fuels when operating in the covered area. 

Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Act allows states to  ̳ ̳opt-out‘‘ of the clean-fuel vehicle fleet 

program by submitting for EPA approval a SIP revision consisting of a program or programs not 

otherwise required by the Act that will result in at least equivalent long term reductions in ozoneproducing and toxic air emissions.

California submitted a commitment to submit a replacement in order to opt out of the 

federal Clean Fuel Fleets program, using the state‘s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program as a 

substitute measure, for the six serious and above 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the state. 

EPA granted a conditional approval of California‘s opt-out request on November 29, 1993. (See 

58 FR 62532). The approval was conditioned upon California‘s submittal of an additional SIP 

revision that would fulfill its LEV program commitment by May 15, 1994. CARB submitted its 

LEV program with enhancements as part of its 1994 ozone SIP on November 15, 1994. We 

approved the substitution of the LEV program for a Clean Fuel Fleet program into the California 

SIP on August 27, 1999. See 64 FR 46849.

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery

CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that States submit a revised SIP by November 15, 1992 

that requires owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline 

vehicle refueling vapor recovery (―Stage II‖) systems in ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate and above. See General Preamble at 13514. 

California‘s ozone nonattainment areas had implemented Stage II vapor recovery well 

before the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990. Under California State law (Health and 

Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards 

for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and 

storage operations. State law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with districts, to certify 

vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods. CARB has 

adopted numerous revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations. See Table A-7 in 

Appendix A to this TSD. See also CARB‘s website, http://www.evrhome.org/.

In the South Coast, the installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor recovery 

equipment is required and enforced by SCAQMD Rules 461 and 462. Both rules were first 

adopted on January 9, 1976. The latest version of Rule 461 was approved into the SIP on April 

11, 2006 (see 71 FR 18216), and the latest version of Rule 462 was approved into the SIP on 

July 21, 1999 (see 64 FR 39037). 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 143

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

CAA section 182(c) (1) requires that all ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious 

or above implement measures to enhance and improve both ambient air quality monitoring of 

ambient concentrations of ozone, NOx, and VOCs, and to improve emissions monitoring of NOx 

and VOCs.

CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires EPA to promulgate regulations for the enhanced 

monitoring of ozone and its precursors and for the affected States to incorporate the requirements 

as a part of their SIPs. In addition, section 184(d) requires that the best available air quality 

monitoring and modeling techniques be used in making determinations concerning the

contribution of sources in one area to concentrations of ozone in another area which is a 

nonattainment area for ozone. 

The intent of these enhanced ozone and ozone precursor monitoring regulations is to 

require air pollution control agencies to obtain an air quality database that will assist in 

evaluating, tracking the progress of, and, if necessary, refining control strategies for attaining the 

ozone NAAQS. Photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS) were to be established to 

collect ambient concentrations of ozone, NOx, nitrogen dioxide NO2, nitrogen oxide (NO), and 

speciated VOC, including carbonyls, and meteorological data to better characterize the nature 

and extent of the ozone problem, aid in tracking VOC and NOx emission inventory reductions, 

assess air quality trends, and make attainment/nonattainment decisions. In addition, the PAMS 

was designed to provide a more definitive database for evaluating photochemical model 

performance, especially for future control strategy mid-course corrections as part of the 

continuing air quality management process. 

Once EPA promulgated rules for enhanced monitoring of ozone, nitrogen oxides, and 

VOCs, serious and above ozone nonattainment areas were required to implement a program 

based on these rules. The measures the State takes to implement the rules were to be put into the 

SIP for that area. The enhanced monitoring requirement requires states to implement a program 

to improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NOx, and VOCs, and to improve 

monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOCs. 

The SCAQMD‘s 2010 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (dated July 2011) 

describes the steps the state has taken to address the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). 

Pages 5 through 7 and 21 of the monitoring network plan describe the South Coast Air Basin‘s 

PAMS network.102,103 The South Coast PAMS network was initiated in 1994 at two monitoring 

sites in the Basin and subsequently expanded through 2001. More detail is provided in the 

following section.

 

102 Starting in 2007, EPA‘s monitoring rules (see 71 FR 61236), October 17, 2006) required the submittal and EPA 

action on annual monitoring network plans. 

103 SCAQMD‘s July 2011 monitoring network plan can be found in the docket for today‘s action. We approved the 

2011 monitoring network plan on November 1, 2011. See letter, Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality Analysis 

Office, EPA Region 9, to Dr. Chung S. Liu, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, 

SCAQMD, dated November 1, 2011. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 144

The PAMS network was initiated in June 1994 at Pico Rivera and Upland, and in 1995 at 

Banning and Azusa, to determine speciated hydrocarbon ozone precursor compounds in ambient 

air. PAMS monitoring at Hawthorne commenced in June 1997 and the Burbank station became a 

PAMS site in July 1997. In May 2001, the Santa Clarita location was established as a PAMS site. 

In April 2004, the Hawthorne site was replaced by LAX Hastings, due to the end of a property 

lease. In August 2005, the Pico Rivera station moved to a new location one half mile south of the 

previous site, also due to the end of the property lease. 

On October 17, 2006, the EPA issued final amendments to PAMS monitoring 

requirements in 40 CFR § 58. The changes made to the rule were to implement recommendations 

made by the PAMS workgroup. The workgroup recommended changes be made to site type and 

monitoring objectives. During September 2008, a report from the EPA PAMS network 

assessment project workgroup was issued. The objectives of the workgroup were to assess how 

well the current PAMS network was meeting monitoring objectives, determine which sites are 

most useful for meeting objectives, identify potentially redundant, ineffective, or unnecessary 

sites, and to assess other enhanced ozone monitoring activities that may prove useful. To address 

regulatory changes, site-specific observations from the PAMS network assessment project, and 

potential synergies between programs, SCAQMD made the following changes to the PAMS 

monitoring network in June 2009: 

Burbank was reclassified from Type 2/1 to Type 2. This change addressed the National 

PAMS Network Assessment observation that Burbank should be reclassified to a Type 2 

precursor site. The recommendation is consistent with the heavily

urbanized/industrialized area, which is impacted by high levels of ozone precursor

emissions.

Santa Clarita was reclassified as Type 3 from Type 2. Although the National PAMS

Network Assessment observed that Santa Clarita was consistent with a Type 2 site, recent 

data was more consistent with a Type 3 maximum ozone concentration site rather than a 

Type 2 ozone precursor site.

Banning was relocated to Los Angeles (Main). The National PAMS Network Assessment 

observed that Banning had the lowest ozone concentrations of all the Type 2 sites and 

should be reclassified to a Type 3 or 4 site. Instead, to create synergies between 

programs, SCAQMD relocated the Banning PAMS site to the Los Angeles (Main) site as 

Type 2. This satisfies the EPA recommendation for use of the same monitoring platform 

and equipment to meet the objectives of multiple programs. Los Angeles (Main) is also a 

National Air Toxics Trends Station (NATTS), a future National Core-Multi-pollutant 

Monitoring Station (NCore), and an Speciation Trends Network (STN) site.

Azusa was reclassified from Type 3 to Type 2. This proposed change addresses the

National PAMS Network Assessment observation that Azusa has high VOC and NOx 

concentrations, with lower ozone concentrations. The site now more closely resembles a 

Type 2 ozone precursor site.

Upland was relocated to the Rubidoux site. The National PAMS Network Assessment 

observed that Upland was no longer consistent with a Type 4 site and recommended 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 145

reclassification to Type 3. South Coast AQMD relocated the Upland PAMS site to 

Rubidoux as a Type 3 location where synergies can be created among the NATTS, 

NCore, and STN programs.

LAX Hastings and Pico Rivera remained unchanged.

Currently, manual VOC canisters are in operation at the Azusa, LAX Hastings, 

Rubidoux, Los Angeles (Main) and Santa Clarita air monitoring stations. During the intensive 

season from July 1 until September 30, VOC canisters are run every three hours for a period of 

twenty-four hours every 3rd day and a twenty-four hour sample is run every 6th day.

During the non-intensive season from October 1 through June 30, twenty-four hour VOC 

canister samples are run every 6th day. At Los Angeles (Main) and Santa Clarita air monitoring 

stations, during the intensive season from July 1 until September 30, carbonyl samples are run 

every three hours for a period of twenty-four hours every 3rd day and a twenty-four hour sample 

is run every 6th day. During the non-intensive season from October 1 through June 30, twentyfour hour carbonyl samples are run every 6th day.

Automated gas chromatography flame ionization detector (GC/FID) VOC systems are in 

operation at the Pico Rivera and Burbank air monitoring stations. During the intensive sampling 

season from July 1 until September 30, the GC/FID is run to collect 3-hour samples and twentyfour hour VOC canisters are run every 6th day. Like the other PAMS sites, carbonyl samples are 

run every three hours with one additional twenty-four hour sample run every 6th day. During the 

non-intensive season from October 1 through June 30, the GC/FID is idle and twenty-four hour 

VOC canister samples are run every 6th day and twenty-four hour carbonyl samples are run 

every 6th day. Rubidoux is a collocated site for VOC canister sampling and Pico Rivera is a 

collocated site for VOC canister and carbonyl sampling.

The first SCAQMD upper air meteorological monitoring station was established at Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) in 1994. Subsequent upper air stations include Ontario 

International Airport (ONT) installed in 1996, Moreno Valley (MOV) installed in 2001 at the 

Moreno Valley Municipal Water Treatment Plant in Riverside County, Irvine installed at the 

University of California Research and Extension Center in 2006, and Pacoima at Whiteman 

Airport during May 2007. The upper air stations use a combination of remote sensing and 

surface meteorological instrumentation, such as an acoustic wind profiler, and tower-mounted 

meteorological measurements of wind, pressure, temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation 

and ultraviolet radiation.

We have determined that the SCAQMD‘s PAMS network meets EPA requirements for 

enhanced monitoring programs. See footnote 101.

7. Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers

CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that SIPs for extreme areas must require each new, 

modified, and existing electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 

25 tons per year (tpy) of NOX to either burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanol 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 146

(or a comparably low polluting fuel), or use advanced control technology (such as catalytic 

control technology or other comparably effective control methods). 

Further guidance on this requirement is provided in the General Preamble at 13523. 

According to the General Preamble, a boiler should generally be considered as any combustion 

equipment used to produce steam and generally does not include a process heater that transfers 

heat from combustion gases to process streams a waste heat recovery boiler that is used to 

recover sensible heat from the exhaust of process equipment such as a combustion turbine, or a 

recovery furnace that is used to recover process chemicals. It also does not include boilers used 

primarily for residential space and/or water heating. General Preamble at 13523. In addition, 

boilers with rated heat inputs less that 15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which are oil- or gasfired may generally be considered de minimis and exempt from these requirements since it is 

unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOX emission limit. General Preamble at 13524.

Only boilers that actually emit more than 25 tons per year of NOx are affected. Emissions 

vary from year to year, however, making applicability difficult to determine. Boilers with rated 

heat inputs of greater than 10-20 million Btu generally have the potential to exceed the 25-tonsper-year limit depending on the fuel type. A source with these high rated heat inputs should 

therefore be considered affected unless its federally enforceable permit specifically restricts NO, 

emissions below 25 tons per year from each boiler.

We believe the term "catalytic control technology" in CAA section 182(e)(3) was 

intended generally to refer to selective catalytic reduction (SCR). SCR is a post-combustion

control technology that reduces NOx reductions by injecting ammonia into the flue gas, which

then passes through layers of catalyst in a reactor.

Selective Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) is a method to lessen nitrogen oxide

emissions in conventional power plants that burn biomass, waste and coal. The process involves 

injecting either ammonia or urea into the firebox of the boiler at a location where the flue gas is 

between 760 and 1,093 degrees Celsius (1,400 and 2,000°F) to react with the NOx formed in the 

combustion process. The resulting product of the chemical redox reaction is elemental nitrogen, 

carbon dioxide, and water. 

To evaluate whether District rules require ―comparably low polluting fuel‖ or 

―comparably effective control methods,‖ we have estimated the NOx emissions from boilers that 

either burn clean fuels (natural gas) or use catalytic control technologies (SCR) to establish 

benchmarks for comparison. According to the 1994 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

Document, ―NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers‖ (1994 

ATC), uncontrolled natural gas-fired boilers have NOx emissions ranging between 0.06 to 0.45 

MMBtu/hour.104 Thus, fuels that result in a similar or lower range of NOx emissions may be 

considered ―comparably low polluting‖ fuels under CAA section 182(e)(3). Boilers burning 

fuels other than natural gas (e.g., coal or oil) but equipped with SCR controls generally emit 

NOx at levels 53 to 94% lower than uncontrolled levels, i.e., NOx emission levels ranging from 

 

104 See Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) Document-- NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boilers, US EPA 453/R-94-022 (March 1994).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 147

0.028 to 0.53 MMBtu/hour (coal) and from 0.005 to 0.37 MMBtu/hour (oil).

105 Thus, control 

methods that result in a similar or lower range of NOx emissions may be considered 

―comparably effective control methods‖ under CAA section 182(e)(3). Boilers burning fuels 

other than natural gas but equipped with SNCR controls generally emit NOx at levels 30 to 88% 

lower than uncontrolled levels, depending on fuel type and boiler type, i.e., NOx emission levels 

ranging from 0.06 to 0.78 MMBtu/hour (coal) and from 0.01 to 0.553 MMBtu/hour (oil). Thus, 

with the exception of coal-fired boilers, we generally consider SNCR controls to be 

―comparable‖ to SCR controls or to natural gas combustion.

Provisions for CAA Section 182(e)(3) in the South Coast SIP

The South Coast 2007 AQMP does not directly address CAA section 182(e)(3) 

requirements for 8-hour ozone. However, we have reviewed the provisions in the SIP which 

affect applicable boilers; our review and analysis is described below.

South Coast Rule 1146 .―Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters,‖ as revised on November 17, 2000 

and approved by EPA on April 8, 2002 (67 FR 16640), regulates emissions from boilers larger 

than 5 MMBtu/hour burning gaseous or non-gaseous fuels. The limits in the rule range between 

0.036 and 0.052 lb/MMBtu, depending on the size of the boiler and its capacity factor. This limit 

is lower than the level of emissions expected from uncontrolled natural gas-fired boilers. Thus, 

the rule essentially requires all subject boilers to burn fuels that are comparably low polluting 

(compared to natural gas combustion) or to use control technologies to achieve emissions levels 

that are similar to those obtained by burning natural gas, methanol, ethanol, or other comparably 

low polluting fuels. 

South Coast Regulation XIII (New Source Review (NSR) Program). Regulation XIII (consisting 

of Rules 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1306, 1309, 1309.1, 1310, and 1313), which EPA has 

approved into the South Coast portion of the California SIP (see 61 FR 64291, December 4, 

1996), applies to any new or modified boiler proposing to locate in the South Coast that emits or 

has the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of NOx or VOC, among other sources.

See Rules 1301 and 1302. Under Rule 1303, any such boiler is required to employ Best 

Available Control Technology, which must be at least as stringent as the Lowest Achievable 

Emissions Rate (LAER) as defined in CAA section 171(3). See Rule 1302(f) and 1303(a). The 

LAER standard essentially requires, at a minimum, combustion of low-polluting fuels and/or use 

of advanced control technologies consistent with the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3). See 

CAA 171(3).106 Accordingly, the SCAQMD‘s SIP-approved NSR program in Regulation XIII, 

which establishes LAER-level control requirements for any new or modified boiler that emits 

more than 10 tpy of NOX, satisfies the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) for each new or 

modified electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of 

 

105 The emissions from uncontrolled boilers burning fuels other than natural gas range between 0.46 to 1.12 

lb/MMBtu (coal) and between 0.08 and 0.79 lb/MMBtu (oil). 1994 ATC at p. 2-11.

106 Section 171(3) of the CAA defines LAER, in relevant part, as ―that rate of emissions which reflects – (A) the 

most stringent emission limitation which is contained in the implementation plan of any State for such class or 

category of source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed source demonstrates that such limitations are not 

achievable, or (B) the most stringent emission limitation which is achieved in practice by such class or category of 

source, whichever is more stringent.‖
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 148

NOX. Table I-1 above summarizes the status of the rules in SCAQMD‘s NSR program.

As to existing boilers that emit more than 25 tpy of NOx, the District has demonstrated 

that each such boiler currently operating in the South Coast either burns as its primary fuel 

natural gas or a comparably low polluting fuel, or uses advanced control technology such as SCR 

or another comparably effective control method (e.g., SNCR), in accordance with SIP-approved 

requirements such as Rule 1146. See letter, Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy Executive Officer, 

SCAQMD, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, dated August 23, 

2011. 

CARB has previously submitted SIP revisions for the South Coast Air Basin addressing 

the clean fuels for boilers requirement under section 182(e)(3) for the 1-hour ozone standards. 

See 61 FR 57775 (November 8, 1996) for EPA‘s approval of the rule submitted to satisfy the 

CAA section 182(e)(3) requirement in the South Coast 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

8. CAA Section 185 Fee Program

CAA section 182(d)(3) requires that ozone nonattainment areas classified severe and 

extreme to submit a SIP revision that includes a CAA section 185 fee program. The fee program 

applies if an area fails to attain the ozone standards by its applicable attainment date. For each 

such area, section 185 requires each major stationary source of VOC and NOx to pay an annual 

fee for emissions in excess of 80 percent of the emissions baseline. The fee is $5,000 (as adjusted 

for inflation) per ton of VOC and NOx emissions that are in excess of the baseline. The CAA 

states that the computation of a source‘s ―baseline amount‖ must be the lower of the amount of 

actual or allowable emissions under the permit applicable to the source (or if no permit has been 

issued for the attainment year, the amount of VOC and NOx emissions allowed under the 

applicable implementation plan) during the attainment year. The fee is required for each 

calendar year beginning after the attainment date and continuing until the area is redesignated to 

attainment although no source is required to pay any fee for emissions during a year for which 

the area receives an extension of their attainment date under section 181(a)(5).

While the requirements of section 185 apply to severe and extreme 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas, states are not yet require to implement CAA section 185 fee programs for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards.

Summary of Status of Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas

Table I-2 summarizes the status of the CAA requirements applicable to extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas discussed in this section of the TSD.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 149

Table I-2. Summary of Status of Other CAA Requirements Applicable to 

Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas

CAA Requirement EPA Action

Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Approved 75 FR 38023, 

July 1, 2010 

Reformulated Gasoline Program Approved 75 FR 26633,

May 12, 2010

New Source Review Rule

Approved December 4, 1996, 61 FR 

64291, March 19, 1999, 64 FR 13514, 

and June 19, 2006, 71 FR 35157

Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program Opt-out approved, 64 FR 46849, August 

27, 1999

Gasoline Vapor Recovery

SCAQMD Rule 461 – approved April 

11, 2006, see 71 FR 18216);

SCAQMD Rule 462 – approved July 

21, 1999, see 64 FR 39037

Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Approved SCAQMD 2009 Network 

Plan on November 10, 2010

Clean Fuels for Boilers

SC Rule 1146 approved April 8, 2002 

(67 FR 16640); NSR program approvals 

listed in Table I-1

CAA Section 185 Fee Program Not yet required to be submitted

Public Comments Received on Other CAA Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas

We received no comments on these other CAA requirements.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 150

III. Response to Comments

List of Comment Letters Received

We received three comment letters in response to our September 16, 2011 proposal at 76 

FR 57872. These letters are 

1. [NRDC] Adrian Martinez, Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

representing NRDC, Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles, California 

Citizens Against Toxics, Desert Citizens Against Pollution, Physicians for Social 

Responsibility-LA, and Communities for a Better Environment, October 17, 2011; 

2. [CARB] Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, California 

Air Resources Board, October 17, 2011; and

3. Ian Scott, a private citizen, October 16, 2011.

A. Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Enforceable Commitments

Comment: California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for a Better Environment, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles

(commenters) assert that the CARB and District commitments to achieve total tonnage 

reductions in the South Coast 8-hour ozone plan are not enforceable. Commenters assert that the 

commitments to achieve total tonnages (which they refer to as ―global commitments‖) could be 

interpreted as ―goals,‖ rather than ―strategies,‖ and are not enforceable because they are 

discretionary and open-ended. Commenters cite Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates 

v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 366 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2004) and El Comite Para 

El Bienstar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008). Commenters 

assert that enforcement of the ―global commitments‖ by citizens is not possible because neither 

citizens nor EPA can determine whether CARB has met the ―global commitments,‖ and because 

CARB and the District determine compliance with the ―global commitment‖ target, thus leaving 

them in a situation faced by plaintiffs in Warmerdam. Commenters assert that the ―global 

commitmentments‖ are also not enforceable because there are no measures submitted for 

inclusion into the SIP to satisfy the tonnage commitment and there are no reporting requirements 

for CARB and the District, and they cite to EPA‘s General Preamble at 57 FR 13568 which 

states, ―[a] regulatory limit is not enforceable if, for example, it is impractical to determine 

compliance with the published limit.‖ Finally, commenters assert that in order to enforce the 

―global commitments,‖ which depend on how CARB and the District calculate emissions 

reductions, the methodology that determines how emissions reductions are calculated must also 

be enforceable. Commenters state that in Warmerdam, the court found neither the baseline nor 

methodology enforceable and thus, the plaintiffs were not able to enforce. 

Response: Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations 

and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, 

as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment 

area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 151

or techniques "as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date.

Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly by EPA under 

CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be 

brought against any person who is alleged ―to be in violation of ... an emission standard or 

limitation....‖ ―Emission standard or limitation‖ is defined in subsection (f) of section 304.107 

As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st

Cir. 1996):

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular 

standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, 

interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific 

provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan," the 

Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or 

commitments designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the 

NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613-14. Courts have repeatedly applied 

this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus 

Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. Transcontinental 

Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530-32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens for a Better 

Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 

(1990).

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the 

aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to 

achieve that goal including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions controls.

We describe CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy 

(revised in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 AQMP in detail in our proposal (76 FR 57872).108 The 

2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures and an enforceable

commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measures and the 

District‘s commitments, to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast by June 15, 

2024. See CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at p. 4 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

p. 20. For the South Coast, the State‘s emissions reductions commitments, as submitted in 2007 

and revised by the 2009 State Strategy Update, are to achieve 152 tpd of NOx and 46 tpd of 

VOC by 2014 and 141 tpd NOx and 54 tpd VOC in the South Coast area by 2023. See 76 FR 

57872, at 57881; 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20.

 

107

 EPA can also enforce SIP commitments pursuant to CAA section 113.

108 The 2011 Ozone SIP Revision revised the State's emissions estimates for certain source categories and projection 

years and provided additional information on the State and District's progress to date in achieving their total 

emission reduction commitments. In this action, we are approving CARB's and the SCAQMD's emission reduction 

commitments as submitted in the 2007 State Strategy, as revised by the 2009 State Strategy Update, and the South 

Coast 2007 AQMP, because we do not have sufficient information to determine how the 2011 SIP Revision alters 

the State's near-term and long-term emission reduction commitments. We note that the amount and relative 

proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to 

measures already adopted or scheduled for near-term adoption, should decrease in any future SIP update.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 152

The SCAQMD‘s commitments as submitted in 2007 (and revised in 2011) were to 

achieve 9.2 tpd NOx and 19.3 tpd VOC by 2023. See 76 FR 57872, Table 2, at 57878; see also 

2011 Progress Report, Appendix F, Tables 2 and 3, and SCAQMD Board Resolution 11-9, 

March 4, 2011. As discussed above, the State‘s total emissions reduction commitment is for 152 

tpd of NOx and 46 tpd of VOC by 2014, and 141 tpd of NOx and 54 tpd of VOC, which the 

State remains obligated to achieve through the adoption of enforceable measures by 2023. See

TSD, Table D-5; see also CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at p. 4. The language used in 

the Board‘s resolution adopting the South Coast 2007 AQMP to describe its commitment is 

mandatory and unequivocal in nature: 

Be it further resolved, that the District will develop, adopt, submit and implement the 

short- and mid-term control measures as identified in Tables 4-2A and 4-2B of the 2007 

AQMP (Main Document) as expeditiously as possible in order to meet or exceed the 

commitments identified in Table 4-10 of the 2007 AQMP (Main Document), and to 

substitute any other measures as necessary to make up any emission reduction shortfall. 

[emphasis added]

SCAQMD Board Resolution No. 07-9, p.10.

Thus, CARB‘s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific 

amounts of NOx and VOC reductions by specific years. These are not mere aspirational goals to 

ultimately achieve the standards. Rather, the State and District have committed to adopt 

enforceable measures that will achieve these specific amounts of emission reductions by the RFP 

year of 2014 and the attainment year (2023). See 40 CFR 51.908(d) (requiring implementation of 

all control measures needed for expeditious attainment no later than the beginning of the year 

prior to the attainment date) and 70 FR 71633, 71612 (November 29, 2005). All of these control 

measures are subject to State and local rulemaking procedures and public participation 

requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District‘s progress in 

achieving the requisite emission reductions. EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments 

under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt measures 

that achieve the requisite amounts of emission reductions by the specified year. We conclude that 

these enforceable commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve 

aggregate emission reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, techniques, or 

schedules for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

Commenters cite Bayview as support for their contention that the plan‘s commitments are 

unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. That 

case involved a provision of the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which 

states in pertinent part:

Support post-1983 improvements identified in transit operator‘s 5-year plans, after 

consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983-1987.

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction estimates are 

predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after 

consultation with the transit operators.

Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that ―[r]idership increases 

would come from productivity improvements....‖ 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 153

Ultimately the 15% ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation 

Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently 

attempted to enforce the 15% ridership increase. The court found that the 15% ridership increase 

was an unenforceable estimate or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered 

multiple factors, including the plain language of TCM 2 (e.g., ―[a]greeing to establish a ridership 

 ̳target‘ is simply not the same as promising to attain that target,‖ Bayview at 698); the logic of 

TCM 2, i.e., the drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to characterize any given increase as an 

obligation because the TCM was contingent on a number of factors beyond MTC‘s control, id. at 

699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of TCM 1 that had as an enforceable strategy the 

improvement of transit services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit 

operators‘ five-year plans, id. at 701. As a result of all of these factors, the Ninth Circuit found 

that TCM 2 clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only enforceable strategy. 

Id. at 703.

The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and South Coast 

2007 AQMP are in stark contrast to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in 

Bayview. The language in CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments, as stated multiple times in 

multiple documents, is specific; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy of 

adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is completely within CARB‘s and the 

District‘s control. Furthermore, as stated previously, CARB and the District identify specific 

emission reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which 

these reductions will be achieved, i.e., by the 2023 attainment year. See Tables 3 and 4 in the 

final rule.

CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the 

contingency measures in Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian, 731 F.Supp.1448 

(N.D. Cal. 1990) [known as CBE I], for the transportation sector in the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour 

ozone SIP. The provision states: ―If a determination is made that RFP is not being met for the 

transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 months of the determination. 

These TCMs will be designed to bring the region back within the RFP line." The court found that 

―[o]n its face, this language is both specific and mandatory.‖ Id. at 1458. In CBE I, CARB and 

MTC argued that TCM 2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because the provision fails 

to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that 

―[w]e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for disregarding this 

unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency measures are not 

provided. Thus we hold that the basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, 

should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, fully enforceable in a 

citizen‘s action, although the exact contours of those measures are not spelled out.‖ Id. at 1457. 

In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were 

enforceable, the court stated: ―Thus, while this Court is not empowered to enforce the Plan's 

overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]--or NAAQS--directly, it can and 

indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan.‖ Id. at 1454; see also Citizens 

for a Better Environment v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 

1990) [known as CBE II] (rejecting defendants‘ argument that RFP and the NAAQS are 

coincident and stating that the court‘s enforcement of the contingency plan, an express strategy 

for attaining NAAQS, is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 154

As in the CBE cases, CARB and the District commit to propose or adopt measures, which are not 

specifically identified, to achieve specific tonnages of emission reductions by specified years. 

Thus, the commitment to specific tonnage reductions is comparable to a commitment to achieve 

RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount of emission reductions through 

adoption and implementation of unidentified measures is comparable to the commitments to 

adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source measures. The key is that the commitment must 

be clear in terms of what is required, e.g., a specified amounts of emissions reductions or the 

achievement of a specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). CARB‘s and the District‘s 

commitments are thus a specific enforceable strategy rather than an unenforceable aspirational 

goal.

Commenters‘ reliance on El Comite (referred to as Warmerdam) to argue that CARB‘s 

commitments are not enforceable is misplaced. In El Comite, the plaintiffs in the district court 

attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 California 1-hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide 

Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide 

the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP‘s 

pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that ―ARB will develop 

a baseline inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use 

data....‖ El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. 

Cal. 2006). CARB subsequently employed a different methodology that it deemed more accurate 

to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the 

original methodology, claiming that the calculation of the baseline inventory constitutes an 

―emission standard or limitation.‖ The district court disagreed:

By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the 

amount of emissions attributed to those sources. As defendants argue, once the 

sources of air pollution are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to 

control emissions entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must 

conclude that the baseline is not an emission ―standard‖ or ―limitation‖ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (f)(1)-(4).

Id. at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBE I, pointing out that in those 

cases ―the measures at issue were designed to reduce emissions.‖ Id.

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and 

the calculation methodology were necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to 

reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court‘s 

conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected 

plaintiffs‘ arguments attempting ―to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable 

emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt 

regulations, if necessary.‖ Id. at 1073.

While commenters cite the Ninth Circuit‘s El Comite opinion, its utility in analyzing the 

CARB and District commitments here is limited to that court‘s agreement with the district 

court‘s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently 

enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‘s opinion, in distinguishing the 

commitments in CBE and Bayview, that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. 

As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not a 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 155

measure to reduce emissions. It instead ―identifies emission sources and then quantifies the 

amount of emissions attributed to those sources.‖ In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2007 

State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) and South Coast 2007 Ozone Plan, CARB and the 

District commit to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified amounts of 

emission reductions by a date certain. As described above, a number of courts have found 

commitments substantially similar to CARB‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

2. Baseline Measures, Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA‘s approval of the inventory in the Plan would violate CAA 

sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) because the baseline inventory includes emissions reduction 

credit for both ―waiver measures‖ and ―non-waiver measures‖ adopted before 2007 (together 

referred to as ―baseline measures‖) that have not been approved into the SIP. NRDC argues that 

EPA has not evaluated each of these baseline measures to determine if they are creditable or 

quantified the emissions reductions attributed to each of these measures. Additionally, NRDC 

asserts that EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because EPA has not approved 

mobile source baseline measures as part of the SIP. NRDC asserts that ―[t]he total tonnage 

attributed to these unsubmitted and non-SIP approved measures in the attainment demonstration 

is not clear, because EPA does not differentiate between reductions from SIP-approved 

measures, waiver measures, and those that have not received EPA approval.‖ Thus, NRDC 

argues, ―a significant amount of emission reductions claimed in the attainment demonstration are 

not SIP creditable, a finding that EPA must make before approving the attainment 

demonstration.‖ NRDC references CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) in support of these 

assertions and argues that ―EPA has failed to find that the reductions from the unsubmitted rules 

have occurred, are enforceable, or are otherwise consistent with the Act, EPA‘s implementing 

regulations, and the General Preamble.‖

NRDC identifies the following rules as examples of ―non-waiver‖ baseline measures that 

have not been SIP-approved: 

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks (adopted 

October 20, 2005). 

Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash (adopted March 27, 2004);

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty DieselFueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted 

December 8, 2005); 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003); 

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adopted May 26, 2006); 

Response: We disagree with these assertions. We explained in our proposal TSD (section 

II.A.3.) our reasons for concluding both that the 2002 base year inventory in the SIP is 

comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 182(a)(1) and that the 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 156

projected baseline inventories provide adequate bases and support for the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan.109

Specifically, with respect to mobile source emissions, we believe that credit for emissions 

reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA 

section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate in the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and for other SIP purposes notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not 

approved as part of the California SIP. In the proposal TSD, we explained why we believe such 

credit is appropriate. See proposal TSD at section II.D.3.c.i. Historically, EPA has granted credit 

for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver 

process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because 

amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to 

afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health 

of its citizens and the public welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). 

In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the 

underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to 

the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit 

in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision.

EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver 

measures in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes by allowing 

California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC 

(and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the 

emissions reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures through review and approval 

of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and 

data, as well as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor 

vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES.

110) The South Coast 

2007 8-hour ozone plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as 

EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 

3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on-road 

―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as the 

emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based 

on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOVES model. All other 

states use the MOVES model (and prior to release of MOVES, the MOBILE model) in their 

baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation 

into their SIPs.

Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California‘s waiver measures for non-road 

engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off-road recreation 

equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‘s OFFROAD emissions factor model.111

 

109For ozone nonattainment areas, a State that satisfies the specific inventory requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) 

also satisfies the general inventory requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). See 57 FR 13498, 13503 (April 16, 

1992).

110

 MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA‘s on-road mobile source emission estimation model for use in 

SIPs and conformity in 2010.

111

 Information about CARB‘s emissions inventories for on-road and non-road mobile sources, and the EMFAC and 

OFFROAD models used to project changes in future inventories, is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 157

(Emissions reductions from EPA‘s non-road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California non-road 

standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle 

standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring 

submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California nonroad standards similarly to the Federal non-road standards, which are relied upon, but not 

included in, various SIPs. See generally TSD at section II.D.3.c.i.

CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines that predict vehicle 

fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted 

regulatory actions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future 

baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7-8. For stationary sources, the 

California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future emissions from stationary and 

area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth 

factors and control profiles to the base year inventory.112 See id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates 

the projected inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single database to provide 

a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are 

extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. See id. In 2011, CARB 

updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among 

other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating 

emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, Appendix B. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth 

factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on 

developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD at section II.A; see also ―Procedures for 

Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA450/4-91-019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory 

Improvement Project, Volume X, December 1999 (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf). In sum, the 2002 base year and 

future projected baseline inventories in the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan were prepared 

using a complex set of CARB methodologies to estimate and project emissions from stationary 

sources, in addition to the most recent emissions factors and models and updated activity levels 

for emissions associated with mobile sources, including: (1) the latest EPA-approved California

motor vehicle emissions factor model (EMFAC2007) and the most recent motor vehicle activity 

data from each of the MPOs in the South Coast area; (2) improved methodologies for estimating 

emissions from specific source categories; and (3) CARB's non-road mobile source model (the 

OFFROAD model). See TSD, section II.A. (referencing, inter alia, 2007 State Strategy at 

Appendix F) and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision. EPA has approved numerous California SIPs that 

rely on base year and projected baseline inventories including emissions estimates derived from

the EMFAC, OFFROAD, and CEFS models. See, e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000) (proposed 

rule to approve 1-hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final 

rule); 70 FR 43663 (July 28, 2005) (proposed rule to approve PM-10 plan for South Coast and 

Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 66916 (December 

17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay); 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 

 

112 Information on base year emissions from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while 

CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from various area 

source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 158

2011) (proposed rule to approve in part and disapprove in part the PM2.5 plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley) and 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule); and 76 FR 41562), (July 14, 2011) 

(proposed rule to approve in part and disapprove in part the PM2.5 plan for the South Coast Air 

Basin) and 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) (final rule). The commenter has provided no 

information to support a claim that these methodologies for developing base year inventories and 

projecting future emissions in the South Coast are inadequate to support the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan.

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our proposal (76 FR 57872, 57876), we 

conclude that the 2002 base year inventory in the 2007 8-hour Ozone plan is a ―comprehensive, 

accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants‖ in the South Coast area, consistent with the requirements for emissions inventories in 

CAA section 182(a)(1), 40 CFR § 51.915, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we 

conclude that the projected future year baseline inventories were prepared consistent with EPA‘s 

guidance on development of emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, 

provide an adequate basis for the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan under CAA 

sections 172(c)(2), 182(a)(1), and 182(c)(2). See TSD at section II.A.4.

Finally, we disagree with NRDC‘s assertion that EPA has not identified the total amount 

of emission reductions attributed to baseline measures in the projected inventories. The total 

amounts of emission reductions attributed to baseline measures in the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP, as revised in 2011, are 352 tpd of VOC and 531 tpd of NOx. See 76 FR 57872, 

57885, Table 8 at line E; see also TSD, Table D-6 at line B.

As to the five specific baseline measures that NRDC asserts should be SIP-approved

before crediting in the RFP and attainment demonstrations: 

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks (effective November 

15, 2006)113 and Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment Rule (adopted May 26, 2006). 

Both of these mobile source measures are pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA 

section 209(b) or section 209(e).114 We expect that EPA will act on these requests for waivers 

of preemption or authorization under CAA section 209 in the near term, and that our final 

approval of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan based in part on its reliance on the 

emissions reductions associated with these rules is, therefore, reasonable and appropriate. If, 

 

113EPA is currently reviewing a request from CARB for a determination as to whether certain requirements of these 

anti-idling rules are preempted by sections 209(a) of the CAA; certain provisions are conditions precedent pursuant 

to section 209(a) of the Act; certain provisions are within-the-scope of previous waivers and authorizations issued 

pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at least one provision requires and merits a full 

authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. See 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the 

operational requirement of the anti-idling rule, which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, achieves 1.3 tpd of 

NOx in the South Coast. See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2), to San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516 ―South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Emissions Reductions from 

ARB‘s Operational Idling Requirements, ―September 28, 2011, in the docket for today‘s action.

114

 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: Request 

for Authorization Determination Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for Amendments to California‘s OffRoad Emissions Standards Regulation for large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines and Fleet Requirement for In-Use LSI 

Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment and California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control 

Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment; Notice Of 

Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010)
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 159

however, EPA either denies or does not issue the State‘s requested waiver for any of these 

measures prior to the effective date of today‘s action, we will take appropriate remedial 

action to ensure that our action on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles 

Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005). CARB‘s 

staff report on this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this 

measures are 0.18 tpd NOx and 0.11 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.09 tpd NOx and 0.05 

tpd VOC statewide in 2020. See Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control 

Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public 

Agencies and Utilities, October 2005, at pp. 56-57. South Coast has approximately 35 

percent of the statewide fleet (id.); therefore, the de minimis amounts of emission reductions 

attributed to this measure in the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan do not affect our 

evaluation of its attainment and RFP demonstrations. 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003). CARB‘s staff report on 

this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this measure are 2.3 tpd 

NOx and 0.72 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.6 tpd NOx and 0.34 tpd VOC statewide in 

2020. See Supplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure 

for On-Road Heavy-Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, 

August 8, 2003, at pg. 20. South Coast has approximately 35 percent of the statewide fleet 

(id.); therefore, the de minimis amounts of emission reductions attributed to this measure in 

the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan do not affect our evaluation of its attainment and 

RFP demonstrations. 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash rule (adopted March 27, 2004) (“Chip Reflash” 

rule). This rule was intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB‘s NOx emission 

standard for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring installation of ―Low-NOx

Software.‖ The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in part by a California State Court, and 

CARB repealed the related regulations in June 2007. The emission reduction credit attributed 

to Chip Reflash in CARB‘s baseline inventories is limited to vehicles that have been 

―reflashed,‖ i.e., physically installed the Low-NOx Software,115 removal of which would 

constitute a violation of the CAA and/or California state law. See the statutory anti-tampering 

laws in CAA section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle Code section 27156. Thus, the NOx

emissions reductions attributed to ―reflashed‖ engines are enforceable under the CAA and/or

California state laws.

 

115

 The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, ―Emission Inventory Output Tables‖ documents the adjustment in the 

baseline that CARB made to account for Chip Reflash (or Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Software Upgrade). As 

described in Appendix A, CARB staff estimates that the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus 

related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NOx emissions reductions statewide in year 2007. CARB 

also indicates that it took into account the fact that the software upgrade regulation had been invalidated by 

including no additional emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had already occurred due to 

compliance with the regulation (prior to invalidation by the court), voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine 

rebuilds, engines upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks. CARB staff recently 

confirmed that the baseline adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State Strategy reflects emission reduction credit 

only for engines that have been ―reflashed.‖ See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to 

the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, ―SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine 

Low-NOx Software (―Chip Reflash‖);‖ September 28, 2011 in the docket for today‘s action.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 160

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA has not approved any CARB mobile source baseline 

measures as part of the SIP or reviewed those measures to consider whether they achieve the 

reductions claimed by CARB, and that EPA cannot approve the Plan when such a ―huge 

component of the control strategy‖ has not been SIP-approved. NRDC also asserts that CARB 

has not submitted copies of its mobile source baseline measures to EPA as part of this plan. 

NRDC also asserts that waiver measures may not be used in attainment demonstrations because 

EPA makes no finding during the waiver process that the rules achieve the reductions claimed or 

that the measures are SIP creditable. NRDC also notes that these issues are the subject of 

litigation in the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 

10-71457 and 10-71458.

Response: We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of 

California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) 

is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the California 

SIP. In our September 16, 2011 proposed rule and the technical support document (TSD) for that 

proposal, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See 76 FR 57872, at 57879-

57880 and the proposal TSD, pp. 86-90. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver 

measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the 

first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments 

to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order "to afford California 

the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens 

and the public welfare," (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing 

California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying 

rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal 

motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs 

without submitting the program as a SIP revision. As we explained in the Proposal TSD (p. 87),

credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road and nonroad standards, 

notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), 

which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives 

such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal 

measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable 

without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such 

measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows 

California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures 

for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on 

considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not 

―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act. 

First, with respect to permanence, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on-road 

waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a 

partial backstop to California‘s on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP 

would apply in California). Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measures. The constraints of the 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 161

waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function 

similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs 

and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State 

program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to 

most parts of the California program.

Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability 

onto California to enforce the on-road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the 

waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as 

EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA 

program. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California 

SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as 

EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state‘s SIPs in their reliance 

on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not 

authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are 

not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that 

vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification.

As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions 

estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions 

factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehiclerelated waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to 

time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions 

standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as MOVES.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for 

vehicle deterioration and many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves 

combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations. See the 

1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 

48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for 

the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA 

in California SIP actions.116 The South Coast 8-hour ozone plan was developed using a version 

 

116

 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the 

underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 

revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular 

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 162

of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP 

development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions 

that are from the California on-road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of 

EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than 

California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through 

the use of the MOVES model.

Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval 

process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at 

the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public 

comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and 

supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 

revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver 

has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within 

the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by 

EPA--i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of 

SIPs and SIP revisions may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate 

United States Court of Appeals.

NRDC correctly notes that EPA‘s treatment of California waiver measures in SIP actions 

is the subject of current litigation in Sierra Club v. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10-71457 and 

10-71458 (9th Circuit).

Comment: NRDC argues that our reliance on the general savings clause in CAA section 193 for 

the proposal to grant emissions reduction credit to California‘s waiver measures without first 

having California submit and EPA approve them into the SIP is inappropriate for two reasons. 

First, NRDC argues that CAA section 193 only saves those ―formal rules, notices, or guidance 

documents‖ promulgated before the effective date of the 1990 amendment that are not 

inconsistent with the CAA. It asserts that the plain language of the CAA requires that California 

submit the control measures, rules and regulations used to meet CAA requirements as part of the 

SIP and that nothing in CAA title II or section 209 provide a basis for EPA‘s position. Second, 

NRDC argues that there is no automatic presumption that Congress is aware of an agency‘s 

interpretations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware of our 

interpretation regarding the SIP treatment of California‘s mobile source control measures. NRDC 

also argues that our positions that Congress must expressly disapprove of EPA‘s long-standing 

interpretation and Congressional silence equates to a ratification of EPA‘s interpretation are 

incorrect.

Response: In the Proposal TSD (pp. 89-90), we indicated that we believe that section 193 of the 

CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long-

 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 163

standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not 

insert any language into the statute rendering EPA's treatment of California's motor vehicle 

standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions 

to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to 

provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the 

health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP 

review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California with 

the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but 

rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such 

standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that 

Congress intended California's mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process 

(i.e., the waiver process), not two.

In summary, we disagree that our interpretation of CAA section 193 is fundamentally flawed. 

EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver measures in our approval of attainment 

demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and 

contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies 

our long-standing practice of allowing credit for California's waiver measures notwithstanding 

the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to provide 

California with the broadest possible discretion in the development and promulgation of on-road 

and nonroad vehicle and engine standards.117

B. Pre-Baseline Emission Reduction Credits

Comment: NRDC comments that the 8-hour Ozone Plan allows for the use of emissions 

reduction credits (ERC) from sources that have shutdown prior to the Plan‘s baseline date of 

2002. NRDC asserts that these pre-baseline ERCs represent an allowance for unmitigated growth 

in emissions. It argues that allowing this growth is inconsistent with the Plan‘s claim that 

existing opportunities for controlling emissions do not exist and therefore it is necessary to rely 

on future technologies to attain the 8-hour standard and undermines EPA‘s ability to demonstrate 

compliance with the CAA. It further argues that EPA cannot claim that the Plan provides for 

expeditious attainment if it allows this unmitigated emissions growth, and that EPA‘s RACM 

analysis is undermined because these avoided emissions coupled with reasonably available 

controls could be adequate to advance attainment by more than a year. Finally, NRDC argues 

that in order to comply with the RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1), EPA must evaluate 

what additional reductions would be needed if the combined impact of these VOC and NOx

emissions were avoided.

Response: The District accounted for the existing pre-base year ERCs in its RFP and attainment 

inventories in a manner consistent with the CAA requirements set forth in Part D and 40 CFR 

part 51.118 This means that all emission reductions for which ERCs were granted were modeled 

 

117

 In this regard, we disagree that we are treating the waiver measures inconsistently with other California control 

measures, such as consumer products and fuels rules, for the simple reason that, unlike the waiver measures, there is 

no history of past practice or legislative history supporting treatment of other California measures, such as consumer 

products rules and fuels rules, in any manner differently than is required as a general rule under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local measures that are relied upon for SIP purposes must be approved into the SIP.

118 See the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Tables 2-8 and Appendix III, Attachment B, Table B-8. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 164

as being in the air.119 The CAA requires this demonstration in anticipation of new sources that 

will utilize these ERCs as offsets in order to obtain NSR permits. 

Under the NSR program, all new major sources (i.e., those with a potential to emit more than 10 

tpy of VOC or NOx) and any increase of permitted emissions of these pollutants, must install 

control technologies in order to meet the most stringent emissions limitations that have been 

achieved in practice by comparable sources (that is, they must meet the lowest achievable 

emissions rate (LAER) as defined in CAA section 171(3)). [South Coast Rule 1303 –

Requirements (paragraph (a))] Thus, these future emissions already reflect the use of the most 

stringent technologies currently available to limit emissions. To further reduce these future 

emissions would require the development of new or improved technologies, as is the case with 

existing emission sources already subject to RACT. Accordingly, we do not agree with the 

NRDC‘s assertion that allowing this emissions growth is inconsistent with the Plan‘s 

determination that additional opportunities for controlling emissions do not currently exist and 

therefore the area must rely on development of new technologies to attain. 

Finally, we disagree with NRDC‘s claims that the 8-hour Ozone Plan cannot provide for 

expeditious attainment if it allows this growth in emissions and that the RACM analysis is 

undermined because these ―avoided emissions coupled with reasonably available controls could 

be adequate to advance attainment by more than a year.‖ As stated above, the growth in ozone 

precursor emissions coming from sources emitting more than 10 tpy, will occur only after the 

source installs controls that achieve the lowest achievable emission rate, which is a higher 

control level than RACM. In addition, such sources with emission increases are required to 

provide emission offsets at a 1 to 1.2 ratio, meaning that for each new ton of emissions a source 

wishes to emit, it must provide a 1.2 ton reduction from the 8-hr Ozone Plan emission inventory. 

[South Coast Rule 1303 – Requirements (paragraph (b)(2))] Thus overall, NSR provides a 

backstop mechanism to ensure attainment is provided as expeditiously as possible. 

C. Rule Effectiveness in District Rules

Comment: NRDC asserts that the SCAQMD should not assume a 100 percent rule effectiveness 

rate for its control measures. Citing EPA‘s definition of ―rule effectiveness‖ in 40 CFR 51.50 

and EPA guidance on accounting for rule effectiveness in preparing emissions estimates, NRDC 

argues that ―EPA recommends an effectiveness factor of 80% for all stationary source and nontailpipe mobile source control measures for future controlled scenarios‖ and that the District‘s 

use of a 100 percent rule effectiveness factor is unsupported and inconsistent with EPA 

guidance. NRDC claims that ―EPA‘s approval of this plan in light of these unrealistic and 

unlawful rule effectiveness assumptions would be arbitrary and capricious.‖

Specifically, NRDC asserts that the District‘s use of a 100% rule effectiveness factor 

amounts to an assertion that it can ―ensure complete and continual compliance at all sources 

covered by the regulation‖ and that the Plan does not meet this standard. NRDC quotes from the 

2007 AQMP, in which the District describes enforcement, source monitoring, and compliance 

verification programs, to argue that the 2007 AQMP ―relies on anecdotal information to support 

this 100% assumption.‖ NRDC asserts that the SCAQMD‘s approach ignores the need for rule 

 

119 See the South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, pg 2-28.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 165

effectiveness improvements when in fact a CARB audit showed lower reported compliance rates. 

NRDC also states that for the gasoline transfer and dispensing operations category (Rule 461), 

the SCAQMD had correctly identified an emission-related non-compliance rate of 37% and 

―adjusted the base and future year emissions estimates by 75% in this category to reflect a 25% 

compliance rate.‖ In support of these assertions, NRDC references the following EPA guidance 

documents: ―Rule Effectiveness Guidance: Integration of Inventory, Compliance, and 

Assessment Applications‖ (EPA 452/R-94-001, January 1994) (―1994 RE Guidance‖); 

―Guidelines for Estimating and Applying Rule Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State 

Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories,‖ EPA-452-R-92-010, November 1992 (―1992 RE 

Guidelines‖); and Memorandum from Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies & Standards 

Division, EPA, to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, ―Ozone Nonattainment Planning:

Decentralization of Rule Effectiveness Policy, April 27, 1995 (―1995 Shaver Memo‖).

Response: We note as a threshold matter that it is not clear which specific element of the South 

Coast 2007 Ozone SIP the commenter‘s concerns apply to. Assuming that NRDC intended to 

argue that the SCAQMD‘s assumption of 100 percent rule-effectiveness in its estimates of base 

year and/or projected year emissions led to defects in the emissions inventories and in the 

RACM, RFP or attainment demonstrations that rely on those inventories, we disagree for the 

reasons provided below. 

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each State having an ozone nonattainment area to submit 

a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources‖ as described 

in CAA section 172(c)(3) and ―in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator.‖ 

See also 40 CFR 51.915 and part 51, subpart A. This ―base year‖ emissions inventory reflects the 

State‘s best estimates of actual emissions120 from all sources of the relevant pollutant(s) in the 

area in a recent calendar year121 and provides the starting point for measuring the area‘s progress 

toward attainment. See, e.g., CAA sections 182(c)(2)(B) and 182(b)(1)(B); see also 70 FR 

71612, 71677 (November 29, 2005) (noting that several CAA ozone planning requirements, 

including milestones that measure progress toward attainment, are ―keyed to‖ the emissions 

inventory). After developing a base year emissions inventory, States use modeling and other 

analyses to calculate projection year (or future ―baseline‖) inventories and target emission levels, 

which then inform the State‘s development of progress milestones and control strategies for 

attaining the NAAQS. See General Preamble, 57 FR 13498 at 13507-13510. 

Rule effectiveness (―RE‖) is a term that describes a method to account for the reality that 

not all facilities covered by a rule are in compliance with the rule 100% of the time. See 

―Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National 

 

120 Base year emissions inventories should include both anthropogenic and biogenic sources of ozone precursor 

emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources capable of affecting air quality within the nonattainment area. 

See ―General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ 57 FR 13498, 

13502 (April 16, 1992) (―General Preamble‖). Because most emission sources do not monitor and report emissions 

continuously, emissions inventories are by nature ―estimates of actual releases to the atmosphere.‖ 70 FR 71612, 

71666 (November 29, 2005). 

121 For areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 2004, EPA recommended that States 

use 2002 as the base year for SIP planning purposes. See Memorandum dated November 18, 2002, from Lydia

Wegman, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, EPA, to Regional Air Division Directors, ―2002 Base Year 

Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs.‖
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 166

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,‖ EPA-454/R-05-001, 

August 2005, Appendix B (―2005 RE Guidance‖) at B-3; see also 40 CFR 51.50 (defining ―rule 

effectiveness‖ for purposes of air emissions reporting requirements). Additionally, RE accounts 

for the fact that control equipment does not always operate at its assumed control efficiency. See 

id. EPA recommends that States consider RE as part of the calculation of emission estimates for 

stationary point and non-point (or ―area‖) sources when developing base year and projection year 

emissions inventories. See 2005 RE Guidance at B-1. Rule effectiveness adjustments are 

generally not applied to mobile sources because the effects of mobile source noncompliance 

have been integrated into the inputs of EPA‘s mobile source emissions factor models. See ―Rule 

Effectiveness Guidance: Integration of Inventory, Compliance, and Assessment Applications‖ 

(EPA 452/R-94-001, January 1994) (―1994 RE Guidance‖) at 1-4 and 3-9.

EPA policy on RE applies only to emissions estimates involving the use of a control 

device or control technique and states that in some cases, even where control devices or 

techniques are used, RE adjustments may not be necessary. For example, when emissions can be 

calculated by means of a direct determination, an RE adjustment is not necessary because the 

emissions estimate is not contingent on the effectiveness of controls. See ―Rule Effectiveness 

Guidance: Integration of Inventory, Compliance, and Assessment Applications‖ (EPA 452/R-94-

001, January 1994) (―1994 RE Guidance‖) See 1994 RE guidance at 3-5; see also 2005 RE 

Guidance at B-3. A direct determination is one in which emissions are calculated directly (e.g., 

based on explicit records for each type of coating and/or solvent used) rather than from estimates 

of uncontrolled emissions and level of control. See ―Guidelines for Estimating and Applying 

Rule Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories,‖ EPA452/R-92-010, November 1992 (―1992 RE Guidelines‖), at 12. In addition, uncontrolled sources 

are not subject to an RE adjustment, and sources with directly determined emission estimates in 

the base year inventory should not have RE applied in a projected inventory. See 1994 RE 

Guidance at 3-19.

Earlier EPA guidance recommended that where a RE should apply, States should 

generally use a default value of 80 percent RE. See, e.g., ―Guidelines for Estimating and 

Applying Rule Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State Implementation Plan Base Year Inventories,‖ 

EPA-452/R-92-010, November 1992 (―1992 RE Guidelines‖) at 2. In 2005, EPA revised its 

policy in recognition that RE can vary widely between different types of industry and in different 

states or areas. See generally 2005 RE Guidance; see also Memorandum from Sally Shaver, 

Director, Air Quality Strategies & Standards Division, EPA, to EPA Air Division Directors, 

Regions I-X, ―Ozone Nonattainment Planning: Decentralization of Rule Effectiveness Policy, 

April 27, 1995 (―1995 Shaver Memo‖) (providing alternatives to EPA‘s recommended 80 

percent default value for RE). The 2005 RE Guidance provides that instead of assuming an 

across the board 80% default value for RE, States should consider a list of the factors that are 

most likely to affect RE in developing base year and projection year inventories. 

The base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP is an inventory of actual 

emissions estimates for year 2002. According to the Plan, information on base year emissions 

from stationary point sources in California is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB 

and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from 

various non-point (i.e., area) source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21; 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 167

South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III at pp. 1-9 through 1-15 (describing the SCAQMD‘s and 

CARB‘s methodologies for developing 2002 base year emissions estimates for stationary point 

and area sources). The 2002 point source emission inventory was developed using emissions data 

reported by stationary point sources subject to the 2002/2003 Annual Emissions Reporting 

(AER) Program, which applies to facilities emitting at least 4 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or 

NOx, among other sources. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III at pp. 1-9. Because these 

emissions were based on direct emissions data, no RE adjustments were necessary for these 

emission estimates. The 2002 area source emission inventory was developed using sourcespecific methodologies based on activity data, emission factors, and other information. Id. at 1-

10 through 1-15. The SCAQMD included emissions from smaller industrial point sources 

(emitting < 4 tpy) not subject to the AER Program in this area source emissions inventory. Id. at 

1-9.

The projected year inventories in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP were developed based 

on emissions projections calculated using a CARB model called the California Emission 

Forecasting System (CEFS). The CEFS model projects future emissions from stationary point 

and area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies 

growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix 

F at 7. Mobile source emission projections are estimated using CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD 

emission factor models.122 See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7-8. The CEFS model then 

integrates the projected inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single database 

to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area 

inventories are extracted by the districts for use in establishing future baseline planning 

inventories. See id. at 7, 8. 

The South Coast 2007 AQMP describes how the District developed the future baseline 

inventories123 in the Plan, based in part on the emissions data and baseline projections provided 

by CARB and other California agencies. See generally South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III. 

The District‘s projections took into account the controls implemented under SCAQMD rules 

adopted as of June 2006, most CARB regulations adopted by June 2005, and a specific set of 

growth rates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for population, 

industry, and motor vehicle activity, among other factors. See id. at 2-3. In 2011, CARB 

updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among 

other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating 

emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision at Appendix B. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth 

factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on 

developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD at section II.A; see also ―Procedures for 

 

122 CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD models for estimating emissions from on-road and non-road mobile sources 

employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms 

that account for all adopted regulatory actions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide 

future baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7-8. Information about the EMFAC and 

OFFROAD models is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. The most recent EMFAC model that EPA 

has approved for use in SIP development in California is EMFAC2007. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).

123 By ―future baseline inventories‖ or ―projected baseline inventories,‖ we mean projected emissions inventories for 

future years that account for, among other things, the effects of economic growth and adopted emissions control 

requirements.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 168

Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA450/4-91-019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory 

Improvement Project, Volume X, December 1999 (available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf). NRDC correctly notes that the 

stationary point and the area source emissions projections that the SCAQMD developed as inputs 

to these projected future baseline inventories generally included an assumption of 100% RE. See

South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix IV at A-7; see also Memorandum to File dated December 

5, 2011, Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: ―SCAQMD Emissions Estimation Methodology.‖ In 

response to the comment, we have further evaluated the projected baseline inventories in the 

Plan to determine whether an assumption of 100% RE was appropriate and to what extent it may 

have affected the control strategy. As explained below, we believe the SCAQMD‘s 

methodologies for projecting emissions were reasonable and that, even assuming that the District 

should not have used 100% RE for certain source categories, the impact on the overall emissions 

projections would have been insignificant.

With respect to both NOx and VOC emissions from stationary point sources, which 

account for roughly 80% of the total NOx projections for stationary sources and roughly 13% of 

the total VOC projections for stationary sources, no RE adjustments were necessary because the 

base year emissions estimates were developed from reported emissions data (i.e., direct 

determinations). Moreover, the SCAQMD‘s compliance and enforcement programs generally 

meet the recommended criteria in EPA‘s 2005 RE Guidance for use of the highest range of RE 

factors for stationary sources.124 For example, all stationary point sources in the South Coast that 

emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of VOC or NOx are subject to the 

District‘s EPA-approved title V operating permits program in SCAQMD Regulation XXX125

(see SCAQMD Rule 3001), which requires subject facilities to regularly report compliance 

information to the SCAQMD. See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 3004(a)(4)(f) (requiring semi-annual 

reports) and (a)(10) (requiring annual compliance certifications). In addition, the SCAQMD‘s 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program, which generally applies to 

stationary point sources that emit 4 tons or more per year of NOx or SOx in the year 1990 or 

subsequent years (see SCAQMD Rule 2001(b)), also contains stringent compliance monitoring 

and reporting requirements. See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 2012(c)(2) (requiring NOx sources to 

install, maintain and operate a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System or other equivalent 

monitoring device) and SCAQMD Rule 2012(c)(3) (requiring NOx sources to install, maintain 

and operate a reporting device to electronically report daily NOx emissions to the District and to 

submit monthly emissions reports). Thus, even in the absence of direct determination, these 

compliance requirements and programs would adequately support the SCAQMD‘s use of the 

highest range of RE factors (94 to 100%) in projecting emissions from stationary point sources 

of VOC and NOx emissions in the South Coast area.

 

124

 For stationary point sources, the 2005 RE Guidance provides that the following factors, among others, may 

support the use of the highest RE range (94 to 100%) in developing emissions estimates: the regulatory agency 

requires source-specific monitoring for compliance purposes and frequent submittal of monitoring records; the 

agency conducts inspections involving compliance test methods with a high degree of accuracy, such as stack testing 

or other types of precise emissions measurements; and/or the agency has authority to impose punitive measures, 

including monetary fines, towards violators such as in delegated title V operating permit programs. See 2005 RE 

Guidance at B-6.

125 See 68 FR 65637 (November 21, 2003) (final rule approving revisions to SCAQMD‘s title V operating permits 

program effective January 1, 2004).
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 169

The SCAQMD‘s regulations for VOC area sources that were accounted for in the 

projected baseline inventories (i.e., rules adopted as of June 2006) also contain stringent 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements which generally meet EPA‘s recommended criteria for 

use of the highest range of RE factors for area sources.126 See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 109 (as 

amended May 2, 2003) (requiring numerous types of VOC area sources to keep daily records of

types of coatings and/or solvents used); see also Memorandum to File dated December 9, 2011, 

Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, RE: ―SCAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Programs.‖ The 

SCAQMD also administers numerous compliance assistance programs, including classroom 

instruction, web-based tutorials, and mailings. See, e.g.,

http://www.aqmd.gov/comply/index.html, http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmd/aqmd_training.htm, and 

http://www.aqmd.gov/pubinfo/Publications/Advisor/2011/Nov2011Advisor.pdf, page 8). These 

compliance requirements and programs generally support the SCAQMD‘s use of the highest 

range of RE factors (86 to 100%) in projecting emissions from area sources of VOC emissions in 

the South Coast area.

We expect that at least some of these VOC area sources are uncontrolled and therefore do 

not require any RE adjustment. Additionally, of those VOC area sources that are subject to 

controls, we understand many are subject to compliance requirements that enable the District to 

make direct determinations of emissions estimates (e.g., through ―mass balance‖ accounting of 

the types of coatings and/or solvents used), which also would not require any RE adjustment. 

See, e.g., SCAQMD Rule 109 (as amended May 2, 2003).

Assuming conservatively, however, that some RE adjustments may have been 

appropriate for area sources, we have evaluated the impact that such adjustments may have had 

on the overall NOx and VOC emissions projections for 2023. With respect to NOx emissions, 

area sources account for about 20% of projected NOx emissions from stationary sources and less 

than 3% of the total NOx inventory for the 2023 projection year. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, 

Appendix III, Attachment B at Table B-9, and Memorandum to File, Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9

Air Planning Office, dated December 14, 2011. Thus, even assuming conservatively that a lower 

RE factor is appropriate for all area sources of NOx emissions, the impact of such an adjustment 

on the future baseline NOx emission inventory would affect less than 3% of the total projected 

NOx inventory (roughly 14 tpd). Assuming that application of an 86%

127 rather than 100% factor 

would directly increase these NOx emissions estimates by 14 percent, then the projected 2023 

NOx emissions inventory would increase by less than 3 tpd. This amount is adequately covered 

by CARB‘s enforceable commitment to achieve 141 tpd of NOx by 2023. 76 FR 57872, 57881 

(Table 6). CARB‘s 2011 SIP Revision reduced the 2023 projected NOx inventory by 12 tpd 

compared to the Plan as submitted in 2007, indicating a surplus in NOx reductions of 12 tpd in 

the Plan as revised. See letter dated August 10, 2011, from Lynn Terry, CARB, to Deborah 

 

126 For stationary area sources, the 2005 RE Guidance provides that the following factors, among others, may 

support the use of the highest RE range (86 to 100%) in developing emissions estimates: over 90% of facilities 

inspected in the source category are in compliance; the regulatory agency requires sources to submit some type of 

compliance certification; and/or a compliance assistance program exists and is adequately staffed. See 2005 RE 

Guidance at B-9.

127 We believe an RE factor of 86%, which is the lowest factor under ―Range 1‖ for non-point (area) sources in 

EPA‘s 2005 RE Guidance, is a reasonable assumption for these calculations given the rigorous compliance 

requirements in SCAQMD‘s area source regulations and the District‘s compliance assistance programs.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 170

Jordan, EPA Region 9, with attachment (transmitting emission inventory improvement 

information). Because the State‘s and District‘s enforceable commitments have not been 

revised, CARB remains obligated to achieve the total amount of emission reductions identified in 

its original commitment (141 tpd). The NOx surplus of 12 tpd included in this enforceable 

commitment adequately covers the potential increase of 3 tpd due to RE adjustments.

With respect to VOC emissions, roughly half of the total projected VOC summer 

planning inventory for 2023 is attributed to stationary point and area sources. See South Coast 

2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B at Table B-9. Of these stationary source VOC 

emissions, approximately 40% are attributed to consumer products (see id.), which prior to 2007 

were not subject to any SCAQMD VOC regulations that the District would have accounted for in 

its emissions projections.128 Most of the remaining VOC emissions (roughly 130 tpd) are 

attributed to area sources that are either uncontrolled or subject to SCAQMD regulations, such as 

cleaning and surface coating operations, architectural coating operations, and farming operations 

(e.g., fertilizer applications). See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B at Table 

B-9. As NRDC correctly notes (and does not take issue with), the SCAQMD made significant 

RE adjustments to the gasoline transfer and dispensing source category subject to SCAQMD 

Rule 461 (petroleum marketing), which accounts for roughly 15% (20 tpd) of these remaining 

VOC area source emissions. This leaves approximately 110 tpd of VOC emissions attributed to 

area sources under the SCAQMD‘s jurisdiction for which RE adjustments may have been 

appropriate but for which California has not specifically provided data on whether they were 

made. All together, these area sources account for approximately 20% of the total projected VOC 

summer planning inventory for 2023. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, Appendix III, Attachment B 

at Table B-9.

Assuming conservatively that all of these VOC emissions are from regulated area sources 

for which direct determinations of emission cannot be made, and that a lower RE factor is 

appropriate for the emissions projections for all of these sources, the impact of such an 

adjustment on the future baseline VOC emission inventory for 2023 would affect only about 

20% of the total projected VOC inventory (roughly 110 tpd). Further assuming that application 

of an 86% RE factor would directly increase these VOC emissions estimates by 14 percent, the 

projected 2023 VOC emissions inventory would increase by approximately 15.4 tpd. We note 

that CARB‘s 2011 SIP Revision reduced the 2023 projected VOC inventory by 5 tpd compared 

to the Plan as submitted in 2007, indicating a surplus in VOC reductions of 5 tpd in the Plan as 

revised. See letter dated August 10, 2011, from Lynn Terry, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, EPA 

Region 9, with attachment (transmitting emission inventory improvement information). Because 

the State‘s and District‘s enforceable commitments have not been revised, CARB remains 

obligated to achieve the total amount of VOC emission reductions identified in its original 

commitment (54 tpd). See 76 FR 57872, 57881 (Table 6). Taking into account this 5 tpd surplus 

in CARB‘s VOC emission reduction commitments, we assume the potential difference in the 

State‘s projected VOC inventory for 2023, had the State applied an 86% RE factor, would have 

been approximately 10.4 tpd or less than 2% of the total projected VOC inventory for 2023.

 

128 Consumer products in California are generally subject to CARB‘s Consumer Products Regulations (CPR) in title 

17, sections 94500-94575 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). In March 2009, the SCAQMD adopted 

VOC content requirements for certain consumer products not subject to CARB‘s CPR, but these District regulations 

are not accounted for in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP‘s emissions inventories. See SCAQMD Rule 1143.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 171

Given the multiple conservative assumptions leading to this small difference in the emissions 

estimates for VOC area sources, we do not believe that an RE adjustment for VOC area sources 

would have altered our evaluation of the South Coast 2007 Ozone plan.

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our proposal (76 FR 57872), we have 

concluded that the 2002 base year inventory in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP is a 

―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant or pollutants‖ in the South Coast area, consistent with the requirements for emissions 

inventories in CAA section 182(a)(1), 40 CFR 51.915, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In 

addition, we conclude that the projected baseline inventories for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 

2023 were prepared consistent with EPA‘s guidance on development of emissions inventories 

and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See TSD at section II.A. Given the continuously-evolving 

nature of estimating emissions, however, we will continue to work with CARB and the 

SCAQMD to ensure that their base year and projection year SIP emissions inventories accurately 

account for rule effectiveness and reflect the best available estimates of current and future 

emissions.

D. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provisions

Comment: Commenters (NRDC, CCAT, DCAP, PSR-LA and CBE) state that California‘s 

reliance on ―black box‖ measures in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP fails to meet the 

requirements and intent of the Clean Air Act by allowing the State to defer its responsibility to 

attain federal standards. Commenters state that there are three problems with how the State and 

District are using 182(e)(5). 

First, commenters state that it is arbitrary for EPA to approve a ―black box‖ with 281 tons 

per day or 55% of the reductions needed, given its lack of definition. Another commenter 

(private citizen) also asserts that the SIP relies too heavily on unknown ―black box‖ solutions, 

which the commenter claims make up 49.6% of needed NOx reductions and 43% of combined 

VOC and NOx reductions.

Second, commenters assert that section 182(e)(5) is intended to address new technologies 

that will develop over time but that in California, ―new technologies alone will not sufficiently 

reduce pollution to attain federal air quality standards.‖ Citing a description in EPA‘s TSD (at 

pg. 79) of a potential measure described by CARB as ―prioritizing federal transportation funding 

to support air quality goals,‖ commenters argue that ―[t]his example clearly fails to meet all the 

criteria required for Black Box use,‖ and that while ―tying air quality to transportation planning‖ 

is important for attainment, the black box cannot be used as a basis for not requiring 

implementation of ―existing‖ strategies such as increased public transit that do not require the 

development of new technologies.

Finally, commenters state that the section 182(e)(5) commitments are vague and 

insufficient and that EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstration ―unless the Section 

182(e)(5) measures comply with the CAA.‖ Citing both section 182(e)(5) of the Act and EPA‘s 

January 8, 1997 final rule approving the 1-hour ozone plan for several California nonattainment 

areas (62 FR 1150, 1179), commenters assert that the new technology measures must: (1) contain 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 172

sufficient definition; (2) contain schedules for development of the new technologies; (3) contain 

commitments for funding; (4) depend on development of new technologies; and (5) include an 

enforceable commitment to develop and adopt necessary contingency measures. Commenters 

assert that the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP ―only attempts to comply with requirement number 

(5),‖ that the generalized discussion in the Plan provides little assurance of CARB‘s ability to 

develop these measures, and that approval of these measures is therefore arbitrary and 

capricious.

Response: First, we disagree with the commenters‘ contention that EPA‘s proposed approval of 

the Plan is arbitrary because of the amount of emission reductions attributed to the ―black box‖ 

(or ―long-term strategy‖),129 or because they are undefined. As an initial matter, we note that the 

commenters‘ assertions about the percentages of the needed emission reductions attributed to the 

long-term strategy are not correct.130 The correct percentages of the needed NOx and VOC 

emission reductions attributed to the long-term strategy in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP are 

26 and 9 percent, respectively, as explained further below.

The CAA does not provide a quantitative limit on the extent to which the attainment 

demonstration for an extreme ozone nonattainment area may rely on new technology provisions 

under CAA section 182(e)(5). As we explained in our proposed rule, section 182(e)(5) of the Act 

authorizes EPA to approve provisions in an extreme area plan which ―anticipate development of 

new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies,‖ and to approve an 

attainment demonstration based on such provisions if the State demonstrates that: (1) such 

provisions are not necessary to achieve incremental reductions required during the first 10 years 

after the effective date of designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and (2) the State has 

submitted enforceable commitments to submit adopted contingency measures meeting certain 

criteria no later than 3 years before proposed implementation of the new technology measures. 

See 76 FR 57872, 57881-57883. EPA interprets this provision to mean that the measures 

approved under section 182(e)(5) may include those that anticipate future technological 

developments as well as those that require complex analyses, decision making and coordination 

among a number of government agencies. See General Preamble at 13524. 

The majority of the emissions reductions in the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP are 

attributed to already adopted and near-term measures. See 76 FR 57872, 57876-89. Our 

summary of South Coast‘s 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the proposed rule shows 

that the South Coast area needs to reduce emissions from 2002 levels by a total of 910 tpd of 

NOx and 461 tpd of VOC to attain the 8-hour ozone standards by June 15, 2024. See 76 FR 

57872, 57885 at Table 8. Approximately 74% of these needed NOx reductions and 91% of the 

needed VOC reductions are attributed to already adopted or near-term measures (i.e., measures 

that will be adopted and implemented by 2014). See 76 FR 57872, 57886 (Table 9) and 57879-

57880 (Tables 3 and 4) (identifying CARB and SCAQMD measures recently adopted or 

 

129

 Throughout this notice we use the terms ―long-term strategy‖ or ―new technology provisions‖ interchangeably to 

refer to the plan provisions that anticipate development of new or improved control techniques under CAA section 

182(e)(5), which the commenters refer to as the ―black box.‖ 

130

 It appears that the commenters overestimated the percentage of ―black box‖ emission reductions in the Plan by 

calculating the amount of needed NOx and VOC reductions without taking into account the reductions attributed to 

baseline measures and emissions inventory improvements. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 173

scheduled for near-term consideration). These measures include all reasonably available control 

measures and generally represent the most stringent air pollution control requirements for 

stationary, area, and mobile sources nationwide. See 76 FR 57872, 57877-57881. This leaves 

about 26% of the needed NOx reductions and 9% of the needed VOC reductions to be met 

through the long-term strategy under CAA section 182(e)(5).131 See 76 FR 57872, 57885 at 

Table 9. 

Given the demonstrated need for emissions reductions from new and improved control 

techniques to reduce air pollution in the South Coast area (see TSD at 79), we believe it is 

reasonable for the State to attribute these amounts of emission reductions to the long-term 

strategy.132 As we stated in our proposed rule, however, we expect the amount and relative 

proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-term adoption under section 

182(e)(5) should decrease in any future SIP update, and EPA will not approve any future SIP 

revisions with an increase in the 182(e)(5) reductions for 2023 without a convincing showing 

that the technologies relied upon in the near-term rules are infeasible or ineffective in achieving 

emissions reductions in the near-term. See 76 FR 57872, 57883. Moreover, to the extent new 

modeling performed in any subsequent SIP revision demonstrates that there is an increase in the 

year 2023 carrying capacity for VOC and NOx, this change may not be used to decrease the 

amount of emissions reductions scheduled to be achieved by any near-term measure from the 

South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP unless CARB or the SCAQMD make the convincing showing 

described above.

Second, we disagree with the commenters‘ suggestion that CAA section 182(e)(5) allows 

only for plan provisions that rely on ―new technologies‖ and that this necessarily means the 

District must adopt additional ―existing strategies‖ that do not rely on new technologies. Section 

182(e)(5) of the Act allows for approval of extreme area plan provisions that ―anticipate 

development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies,‖ which 

EPA interprets to include ―those that may anticipate future technological developments as well 

as those that may require complex analyses and decision making and coordination among a 

number of government agencies.‖ See 57 FR 13498, 13524. Thus, in addition to plan provisions 

that rely on ―new technologies,‖ section 182(e)(5) contemplates provisions that are as of yet 

undefined because they require, for example, time for State and local agencies to evaluate 

complex technical information and to seek public participation in their regulatory processes. 

The commenters correctly note that EPA‘s TSD identified ―prioritiz[ation of] federal 

transportation funding to support air quality goals‖ among a number of potential long-term 

strategies that CARB had identified for further consideration (see TSD at 79, citing 2007 State 

 

131

 For NOx, the long-term emission reductions are 241 tpd in 2023 or approximately 26 percent of 910 tons, the 

total reductions needed. For VOC, the long-term emission reductions are 40 tpd in 2023 or approximately 9 percent 

of the 461 tons of VOC reductions needed. 

132 During development of the 2007 State Strategy, CARB staff analyzed whether current NOx technologies for 

mobile sources are clean enough to provide all the emission reductions needed for ozone attainment in the South 

Coast and San Joaquin Valley. ARB included in this analysis the phasing in of the cleanest new technology 

standards from 2007-2017 that ARB and U.S. EPA have already adopted for diesel engines: 0.2 g/bhp-hr on-road 

truck standards in 2010, full offroad Tier 4 standards in 2014, and the recent U.S. EPA-proposed low-NOx standards 

for locomotive engines starting in 2017. The totals of remaining emissions after full clean-up of the legacy diesel 

fleets in the South Coast air basin still exceed the NOx carrying capacity by 133 tpd. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 54.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 174

Strategy, pp. 55-56), but they do not describe any specific control measure that such budgetary 

decisions could support and that is reasonably available for current implementation in the South 

Coast area. Likewise, although the commenters assert generally that ―increased transit‖ and other 

―existing strategies‖ should be required as control measures because these do not require the 

development of new technologies, they have not identified any particular control measure that 

the State should be obligated to include in its plan for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

CARB and the SCAQMD have adopted all of the control measures for NOx and VOC 

that are reasonably available for current implementation in the South Coast area and have 

submitted enforceable commitments to adopt additional measures achieving specific amounts of 

emission reductions by specific years. See 76 FR 57872, 57877-57881 and 57886. These 

measures are not sufficient, however, to achieve the significant amounts of NOx and VOC 

reductions necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast by June 15, 

2024. Absent new information about additional control measures that are cost-effective and 

technically feasible for current implementation in the area, we believe it is reasonable to allow 

the State and District time to develop additional control measures based on new or improved 

control techniques under CAA section 182(e)(5). 

Third, we disagree with commenters that the section 182(e)(5) commitments are vague 

and insufficient. As discussed in our proposed rule, CARB has submitted enforceable 

commitments to achieve specific amounts of NOx and VOC reductions by 2023 through the 

development of new or improved control techniques under CAA section 182(e)(5). The total 

tonnage commitment in the South Coast is for 241 tpd NOx and 40 tpd VOC. See 76 FR 57872, 

57881-57882 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20. With respect to the requirement for 

contingency measures in CAA section 182(e)(5)(B), we explained in our proposed rule that 

CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision contains the State‘s enforceable commitment ―to develop, 

adopt, and submit contingency measures by 2020 if advanced technology measures do not 

achieve planned reductions‖ (76 FR 57872, 57882, referencing CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 

2011), and in a letter dated November 18, 2011 to EPA Region 9, CARB confirmed that EPA‘s 

understanding of this enforceable commitment is correct. See letter dated November 18, 2011, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9. 

In addition, as explained in our proposed rule (76 FR at 57882), the South Coast 2007 

Plan identifies numerous potential measures currently under consideration as part of the longterm strategy, and CARB has committed to submit a SIP revision by 2020 that will identify the 

additional strategies and implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by the 

beginning of the 2023 ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A-8; see also letter dated 

August 29, 2011 from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, 

to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 9 (describing California‘s 

climate change programs, clean car technologies, programs to accelerate hybrids and plug-in 

technologies, greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles, and SCAQMD‘s 

efforts to transition to broad use of zero- and near-zero emission technologies for freight 

transportation and passenger vehicles and to increase energy efficiency in buildings). We note 

also that CARB has stated its intent to convene annual strategy meetings with the Districts and 

EPA to discuss progress in the development of its new technology measures, and to secure 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 175

resources for continuing research and development of new technologies. See letter dated August 

29, 2011, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9; see also 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report, pp. 25-27. 

Finally, commenters reference CAA section 182(e)(5) and EPA‘s final rule approving an 

ozone SIP previously submitted by California (62 FR 1150, 1179)133 in support of its assertion 

that the long-term strategy must satisfy five ―requirements,‖ of which, commenters contend, the 

South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP addresses only one. We disagree with this characterization of both 

the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(5) and the provisions in the South Coast 2007 Ozone 

SIP. 

As explained above and in our proposed rule, EPA interprets the Act to allow EPA to 

approve the State‘s conceptual new technology provisions and credit them toward the attainment 

demonstration if the state makes the required commitment to submit contingency measures, 

which then must be submitted to EPA no later than 3 years before proposed implementation and 

EPA concludes that the measures are not needed to achieve the first 10 years of required rate of 

progress reductions. See 76 FR 57846, 57854. The five ―requirements‖ for approval of new 

technology provisions that commenters reference are not statutory or regulatory requirements but 

recommended criteria. See General Preamble at 13524.134

As also explained in the proposed rule, CARB and the District have demonstrated a clear 

need for additional time to fully develop and adopt the long-term measures under consideration 

and have met the statutory requirements for approval of such conceptual measures under CAA 

section 182(e)(5). See 76 57872 57881-57883. The General Preamble at 13524 recommends that 

a SIP relying on new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) identify all of the 

specific long-term measures the State intends to adopt, contain a schedule outlining the specific 

steps leading to final development and adoption, and contain commitments from the agencies 

that would be involved in developing and implementing these measures, in addition to satisfying 

the statutory criteria. However, as discussed in our proposed rule and above, both the 2007 State 

Strategy and the South Coast 2007 AQMP provide lists of the types of technologies and 

 

133

 We note that although this final action included EPA‘s approval of new technology provisions under CAA 

section 182(e)(5) as part of California‘s SIP for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast area, this prior 

rulemaking action is not germane to today‘s action on the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP. We assume that the 

commenters intended to refer, instead, to the source of the five criteria that EPA has recommended for consideration 

in evaluating new technology provisions under CAA 182(e)(5), which is the General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13524 

(April 16, 1992)).

134

 EPA‘s General Preamble states that in order to rely on ―new technology provisions‖ under CAA section 

182(e)(5), a SIP must satisfy the following criteria: (1) identify all measures, including the long-term measure(s) for 

which additional time would be needed for development and adoption; (2) show that the long-term measure(s) 

cannot be fully developed and adopted by the submittal date for the attainment demonstration and contain a schedule 

outlining the steps leading to final development and adoption of the measure(s); (3) contain commitments from 

those agencies that would be involved in developing and implementing the schedule for the measure; (4) contain a 

commitment to develop and submit contingency measures (in addition to those otherwise required for the area) that 

could be implemented if the measure is not developed or if it fails to achieve the anticipated reductions; and (5) not 

rely on the new technology measures to meet any emissions reductions requirements within the first 10 years after 

enactment. See 57 FR 13498, 13524 (April 16, 1992). We note that this language is non-binding guidance although 

it is phrased in mandatory terms.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 176

measures that they are pursuing to achieve the emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 

8-hour ozone standard in the South Coast. See 76 FR 57872, 57882-57853 and TSD, section 

II.C.2.d; see also, 2007 AQMP, Chapters 4 and 7; 2007 State Strategy, pp. 54-57; 2009 State 

Strategy Update, p. 25; and 2011 Ozone Plan Update, Appendix A. The State has also committed 

to share the results of its efforts with the public through Board meetings, workshops and other 

means. See 2009 State Strategy Update, p. 25; see also, letter, James Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 29, 2011.

Finally, the State has committed to work to secure resources for continuing research and 

development and to develop schedules for moving from research to implementation. Id. We find 

that the State and District have adequately addressed the policy criteria in the General Preamble 

given the significant emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

South Coast and the type of sources (i.e., mobile sources) for which technology must be 

developed, tested, and deployed in order to achieve these reductions. EPA commits to do its 

share to support the needed research and development activities of CARB and the District.

Comment: Commenters state that the South Coast will exceed the 1-hour ozone standards by 

30% in 2010 and that this is relevant because the South Coast‘s 1-hour ozone plan relied heavily 

on ―black box‖ measures. Commenters argue that the South Coast area failed to meet the 1-hour 

standards ―because the commitments to develop and implement Black Box measures never fully 

came to fruition‖ (citing EPA‘s September 14, 2011 proposal to determine that the South Coast 

area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standards by the applicable attainment date (76 FR 56694)) 

and that EPA cannot reasonably rely on the continued use of the ―black box‖ because the District 

and CARB‘s track record using this approach has not delivered the pollution reductions that were 

promised in prior plans. Commenters state that EPA must direct CARB to ―extract from the 

black box‖ needed reductions they know will not come from future technologies, reduce the 

overall size of the black box to a reasonable level and better define where the remaining black 

box reductions are expected to come from.

Response: EPA is acting today on the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP, which the State submitted 

to meet the requirements of part D, title I of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Neither the CAA‘s planning requirements related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standards nor 

the State‘s submittals to meet the Act‘s requirements for that prior standards are germane to our 

action on the South Coast 2007 SIP under CAA section 110(k). Additionally, nothing in section 

182(e)(5) of the CAA or our implementing regulations requires EPA to take into account the 

success or failure of a prior plan for a different NAAQS in approving extreme area plan 

provisions that meet the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(5) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. EPA‘s proposed rule to determine that the South Coast area failed to attain the 1-hour 

ozone standards by its applicable attainment date (76 FR 56694, September 14, 2011), which 

commenters reference, likewise has no bearing on our action on the South Coast 2007 Ozone SIP 

under CAA section 110(k). 

Moreover, we disagree with commenters‘ contention that the South Coast area failed to 

meet the 1-hour ozone standards ―because the commitments to develop and implement Black 

Box measures never fully came to fruition.‖ The failure of an area to attain a NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date does not mean that the State has failed to achieve the emissions 

reductions anticipated in the SIP, whether under CAA section 182(e)(5) or otherwise. The 

control strategy (including the ―black box‖) that EPA previously approved for the South Coast 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 177

area (62 FR 1150) was developed long before the attainment date using the best scientific 

information available at the time, including estimates of the area‘s carrying capacity using 

photochemical grid modeling and other technical tools and assumptions. This control strategy, 

however, has proven insufficient to attain the 1-hour ozone standards by the applicable 

attainment date of November 15, 2010, due to imperfect estimates as to the carrying capacity of 

the South Coast air basin with respect to the 1-hour ozone standards and other imperfections in 

the tools and assumptions upon which the prior plans were based. A State may fully implement 

all measures that are predicted as necessary to attain a particular NAAQS and still fail to attain 

that NAAQS. 

Finally, we disagree with commenters‘ argument that EPA must direct CARB to ―extract 

from the black box needed reductions they know will not come from future technologies, reduce 

the overall size of the black box to a reasonable level and better define where the remaining 

black box reductions are expected to come from.‖ It is not possible at this point in time to know 

that certain emission reductions will not come from future technologies, and we do not believe it 

is reasonable to require the State to reduce the amount of emission reductions attributed to the 

long-term strategy by either implementing measures or incremental reductions beyond those 

otherwise mandated by the Act or developing measures based on control techniques not yet 

identified or commercially available for implementation in the area. As explained above, the 

State has met the statutory criteria for approval of its long-term strategy under CAA section 

182(e)(5). 

Comment: Commenters state that the commitment by CARB to submit a revision to EPA by 

2020 provides little assurance that the black box strategies will work. Citing Association of 

Irritated Residents (AIR) v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, 592 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing the triennial 

review process in California law and the triennial inventory requirement under the federal Clean 

Air Act), commenters state that delaying a revision until 2020 and not requiring more frequent 

updates is arbitrary and capricious because both California law and the CAA contain 

requirements for updating clean air plans more frequently than every nine or ten years. 

Commenters also argue that delaying submittal of an update until 2020 is arbitrary and 

capricious because this is too late to allow time to remedy any problems that may need CARB 

regulations, transportation infrastructure and other technology developments that will require 

more than three years to develop. 

Response: As discussed in our proposed approval, CARB has committed to achieve all of the 

emission reductions attributed to the section 182(e)(5) conceptual new technology measures by 

the attainment year (2023) and has satisfied the section 182(e)(5) criteria for approval of its new 

technology provisions by demonstrating that the measures are not relied on for RFP and 

committing to submit adopted contingency measures by 2020 to be implemented should the 

anticipated reductions from new or improved technologies not occur. In addition, as discussed 

above, CARB has stated its intent to continue the State‘s ambitious clean technology 

development programs and has committed to public outreach as well as annual meetings to 

update EPA on its progress. Although we recognize the commenters‘ concerns about the 

absence of any specific milestones or updates prior to 2020, the Act does not mandate that the 

SIP include specific enforceable actions during this period.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 178

The triennial review process cited in AIR is a California state law requirement applicable 

to air quality plans developed pursuant to the California Clean Air Act to meet California‘s 

ambient air quality standards. See California Health and Safety Code Section 40924(b) and 

40925(a). The CAA triennial inventory requirement cited in that decision is an emissions 

inventory requirement in CAA section 182(a)(3), which requires States with ozone 

nonattainment areas to submit revised inventories every three years until redesignation to 

attainment. See also 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Neither the triennial review requirement under 

the California CAA nor the periodic inventory requirement under the Federal CAA applies to our 

evaluation of new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5). 

E. CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Requirements

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA‘s interpretation of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) in the proposed 

rule, i.e., that compliance with this requirement is shown if an area demonstrates that emissions 

from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year, fails to comply with the 

decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated Residents 

v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011) and is also inconsistent with EPA policy in the General 

Preamble (57 FR at 13523). According to NRDC, the General Preamble states that section 

182(d)(1)(A) requires SIPs to contain ―specific, enforceable measures selected by the State... 1) 

adequate to hold vehicle emissions within the ceiling‖ sufficient to offset growth in emissions 

from VMT growth, and 2) ―sufficient to allow total area emissions to comply with the RFP and 

attainment requirements‖ and that EPA‘s review of a SIP revision will ―assess the adequacy of 

the growth-offsetting measures against all three criteria specified by the [CAA].‖ Finally, citing 

the legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (H.R. No. 101-490, part 1, 101st Cong. 

2d Sess., at 242), NRDC asserts that EPA has improperly construed section 182(d)(1)(A) to not 

require offsets for the emissions increases attributable to the increase in VMT since 1990 and 

claims that despite this ―clear legislative language contradicting EPA‘s position, EPA is allowing 

one of the most polluted air basins in nation with severe transportation issues to be exempt from 

important transportation control requirements.‖

Response: Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that nonattainment areas classified as 

severe or extreme submit transportation control strategies and transportation control measures 

(TCMs) sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) or the number of vehicle trips, and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions 

needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement. This CAA section also requires that states 

choose and implement such measures as are specified in section 108(f), to the extent needed to 

demonstrate attainment.

As we explained in both the TSD and the proposed rule, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to treat the three required elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions 

growth (―VMT offset‖), attainment of the RFP reduction, and attainment of the ozone standards) 

as separable and we have interpreted the first element of this CAA provision to allow areas to 

meet the requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year 

through the attainment year. See TSD section II.F.1 and 76 FR 57872, 57890. See also Brief for 

the Respondents, Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. EPA, and Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-71383 & 09-71404, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at pp. 

47-61, and EPA‘s responses to similar comments in our final actions on the South Coast 1-hour 

ozone SIP, 74 FR 10176, 10179-10180 (March 10, 2009) and the SJV 1-hour ozone SIP, 75 FR 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 179

10420,10433 (March 8, 2010) and TSD at section VI.H.135 This interpretation is consistent with

the language in EPA‘s General Preamble (at 13522, first column, 2nd full paragraph): ―If 

projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are not higher than 

during the ozone season the year before, given the control measures in the SIP, the VMT offset 

requirement is satisfied.‖ 

In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, with respect to the first element, CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) requires states to adopt transportation control measures and strategies whenever 

vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle miles 

traveled not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has 

filed a petition for rehearing on this issue. See Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. EPA,

Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 (consolidated), Docket Entry 41-1, Petition for Panel 

Rehearing. 

At the time of our September proposal, the Ninth Circuit had not yet issued its mandate in 

the AIR case, and EPA had not adopted the court‘s interpretation for the reasons set forth in the 

Agency‘s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by the court. We stated in our proposal 

that if the court denied the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issued its mandate before EPA 

issued a final rule on the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone plan, then we anticipated that we 

would not be able to finalize approval of the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone plan with respect 

to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A). See 76 FR 57872, 

57890. Therefore, we proposed in the alternative to disapprove the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone plan with respect to the first element of section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan‘s failure to 

include sufficient transportation control strategies and TCM to offset the emissions from growth 

in VMT. Id. Because the court has still not issued its mandate, for the reasons provided in our 

proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 57862-57863), we are approving the South Coast 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone plan as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) consistent with our longstanding interpretation of this provision.

Comment: NRDC asserts that EPA has also failed to assess the adequacy of the SIP‘s 

compliance with the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) that the SIP provide adequate 

enforceable control measures ―to allow total area emissions to comply with RFP and attainment 

requirements.‖ NRDC argues that, because the area has not adopted sufficient enforceable 

control measures to provide for attainment (citing to its comments that the attainment 

demonstration is not approvable because, inter alia, measures relied on in that demonstration 

were not in the SIP), this provision must be met and EPA must direct the State/District to adopt 

the additional measures needed for attainment, either as TCMs to reduce motor vehicle 

emissions, or as controls on other source categories so that total emissions reductions provide for 

attainment. 

 

135

 See Final Technical Support Document for the Action on the San Joaquin Valley Extreme 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard Plan and San Joaquin Portion of the 2003 State Strategy, Office of Air Planning, Air Division, 

Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9, December 11, 2009.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 180

Response: CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the State to ―submit a revision that identifies and 

adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures 

...to attain reductions in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in combination with other 

emission reduction requirements of [title 1, part D, subpart 2], to comply with the requirements 

of [sections 182] (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B)‖ and ―to consider measures specified in section 

108(f)... and to choose from among and implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate 

attainment.‖

We have determined that the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone plan meets the RFP 

requirements in sections 182(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) and demonstrates attainment consistent with 

the subpart 2 requirements and thus also meets the requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) to adopt 

transportation control strategies and TCMs as necessary to demonstrate RFP and attainment. See

76 FR 57872, 57890 and TSD, section II.F.3; see also TSD, section III.A.2. (responding to 

comments on the approvability of the baseline emissions inventory and the attainment 

demonstration). The SIP also includes documentation that the state considered the transportation 

control measures listed in CAA section 108(f), evaluated their effectiveness in contributing to 

expeditious attainment, and concluded that they would not. See South Coast 2007 AQMP, 

Appendix IV-C; 76 FR 57872, 57879 and 57890 and TSD, sections II.C.2.b. and II.F.2.

We disagree with NRDC‘s summary of the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requirements 

related to RFP and attainment. This specific section does not require that the SIP provide 

―adequate enforceable control measures  ̳to allow total area emissions to comply with RFP and 

attainment requirements‘‖ but rather it requires that the state adopt enforceable transportation 

strategies and TCM as necessary in combination with other emissions reduction requirement of 

subpart 2 to demonstrate RFP and to implement TCMs as necessary to demonstrate attainment. 

Thus, if other SIP provisions provide for RFP and attainment consistent with applicable CAA 

requirements (including, in this case, the provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5)), then the state has 

no obligation under section 182(d)(1)(A) to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs for 

RFP and attainment purposes.

F. Comments on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment: CARB has requested that EPA limit the duration of approval of the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for both PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone that were submitted on July 29, 2011 to last 

only until the effective date of EPA‘s adequacy finding for any subsequent budgets as is allowed 

under EPA‘s May 14, 1999 guidance memorandum ―Conformity Guidance on Implementation of 

the March 2, 1999, Conformity Court Decisions.‖

Response: The transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of budgets. 

See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a state‘s request to limit an approval 

if the request includes the following elements:

an acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets under consideration have 

become outdated or deficient; 

a commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update; and

a request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to the time when new budgets have 

been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 181

See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of MVEB in certain 

California SIPs).

CARB‘s request does not include all these elements; therefore, we cannot address it at 

this time. Once CARB has addressed these factors, we will consider proposing to limit the 

duration of our approval of the MVEB in the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP and 2007

PM2.5 Plan. The duration of the approval of the budgets would not be limited until we completed 

this rulemaking.

G. General Comments

Comment: The commenter commends EPA and the SCAQMD for the hard work and extensive 

documentation prepared in developing the SIP and EPA‘s proposed action on the SIP. 

The commenter states that allowing the SCAQMD to place 49.6% NOx and 43% VOC 

reductions in the Section 182(e)(5) ―black box‖ is excessive and then the commenter asserts that 

additional practical steps can be taken now to produce significant improvements in air quality, or 

that could more accurately quantify current emissions, or to reduce or eliminate emissions. The 

specific measures the commenter addresses include 1) standardizing existing air quality 

legislation in the San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and the Coachella Valley; the commenter 

cites California Code Section 65302.1, which applies to the San Joaquin Valley County general 

plans; 2) strict enforcement of existing local and state air quality legislation, in which the 

commenter refers to aggregation under the New Source Review (NSR) process, citing 

specifically the Azusa Rock Quarry project in the commenter‘s city of residence; 3) introduction 

of legislation to require out of state heavy diesel vehicles to meet California emissions standards 

or pay reasonable fines; and 4) improved identification of heavy diesel vehicles (the commenter 

cites tractor/cab units) to help members of the public who wish to report smoking vehicles 

through the SCAQMD help line.

Response: The commenter‘s contention that the Section 182(e)(5) ―black box‖ has 49.6% NOx 

and 43% VOC reductions is incorrect. Please refer to our Response on Section 182(e)(5) for a 

discussion of this issue. In addition, the specific measures that the commenter implies could 

reduce reliance on Section 182(e)(5) are unavailing. As discussed in our proposed rule (76 FR 

57872, 57876-57881), the South Coast has demonstrated that it has adopted all reasonably 

available control measures for NOx and VOC emission sources and the commenter has not 

demonstrated that any of the measures he recommends are otherwise reasonably available for 

current implementation in the area. On the commenter‘s first point, the example the commenter

provides is related to California Code Section 65302.1, which requires cities and counties in the 

San Joaquin Valley to amend their general plans to include data and analysis, comprehensive 

goals, policies and feasible implementation strategies designed to improve air quality. California 

Code Section 65302.1 applies only to the San Joaquin Valley. It is not EPA‘s role to determine 

which measures, beyond those required by the CAA for a particular nonattainment area such as 

inspection and maintenance (―SmogCheck‖) or fuels programs, a State adopts into its SIP. Nor is 

it EPA‘s role to determine what must be included in an area‘s general plan. Furthermore, state 

legislation would be needed to create a similar requirement for the areas under South Coast Air 

Quality Management jurisdiction (South Coast and Coachella Valley). 
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 182

On the commenter‘s second point, regarding aggregation under the New Source Review (NSR) 

process, the commenter cites the Azusa Rock Quarry project in the commenter‘s city of 

residence. This comment is outside the scope of our action. EPA‘s action on California‘s plan 

for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast area does not address 

aggregation under the NSR program, nor is our action related to any Environmental Impact 

Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act. The District has a public process 

for considering permitting issues under New Source Review. See Regulation XIII.

Regarding the commenter‘s third point, the commenter asserts that out of state heavy-duty diesel 

vehicles should have to meet California‘s emissions standards or should be subject to 

―reasonable fines.‖ Since 2008, California and federal heavy-duty truck emissions standards are 

equivalent. See Table III-1 below.

Table III-1. EPA and California Heavy-Duty Truck Emissions Standards, 2007 Model 

Year and Later (in grams per brake –horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr))136

Pollutant 



Nitrogen Oxides 

(NOx)

Non-methane 

HydroCarbons 

(NMHC)

Particulate 

matter (PM)

EPA 0.20 0.14 0.01

Californiaa0.20 0.14 0.01

a California standards are for 2008 MY and later vehicles.

Finally, the commenter‘s fourth comment suggests that heavy-duty vehicles be required to 

display the license plate in a location clearly visible to other motorists from the rear of the 

vehicle, allowing motorists to report vehicles ―that are obviously emitting large quantities of 

diesel particles‖ to the SCAQMD 1-(800) CUT SMOG hotline. This comment is beyond the 

scope of our action, which was to propose to approve the portions of the South Coast 2007 

AQMP and 2007 State Strategy, as revised, as meeting the requirements of the CAA and EPA 

guidance. We note that the California Department of Motor Vehicles generally issues license 

plates and regulates their placement and usage.

 

136 Sources: 66 FR 5002, January 18, 2001, and http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 183

Appendix A –CARB Rules and Measures
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 184

A. Complete List of State Measures

Appendix Table A-1 is a list of all measures adopted by CARB from 1990 until the end 

of 2006. This period covers the 18 years prior to the development of the 2007 State Strategy and 

the South Coast 2007 AQMP. The table should include any substantive rules that would still be 

generating emissions reductions in the South Coast nonattainment area during the 2002-2014 

period covered by the Plan and thus reflected in the baseline for the Plan.

This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State‘s inspection and maintenance program adopted 

by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.

Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., 

permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address particulate matter or a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in the South Coast nonattainment area (e.g., asbestos air toxic control 

measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area (e.g., test 

methods).

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. . T 17, CCR, 94500-94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). . T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty. . T 13, CCR, 2035-

2041, 1977 12/14/89 On-road

Non-vehicular Test Methods. . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 

17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 

& 38391 02/08/90 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. . T 

17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, 

CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from 

Sterilizers & Aerators. . T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 185

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. . T 17, 

CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802-90803 05/10/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/14/90 Not applicable

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD. . T 

17, CCR, 94520-94526 06/14/90 Consumer products

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. . T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. . T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 On-road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. . T 13, CCR, 

2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical 

Waste Incinerators. . T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. . T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards. . T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On-road

Transport Mitigation Regulations. . T 17, CCR, 70600-

70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria 

and Guidelines. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-

93347

09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I. . T 

13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. . T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 

2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061.

09/28/90 On-road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I - Consumer Products. . T 17, CCR, 94507-94517 10/11/90 Consumer products
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 186

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. . T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. . T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90 On-road

Revision to Designation Criteria. . T 17, CCR, 60200-

60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code. . T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden 

Engines. . T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Off-road

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant. 

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not applicable

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. . T 13, CCR, 

2256 12/13/90 Fuels

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. . T 17, 

CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not applicable

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. . T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 

90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not applicable

Non -Vehicular Test Methods. . T 17, CCR, 94131, 

94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not applicable

Administrative Hearing Procedures. . T 17, CCR, 

60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. . T 17, & 26, 

CCR, 90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 80150, 

80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds 

as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and Light & 

Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 On-road

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 187

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, CCR, 

70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91 On-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity 

adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF 

for M85 transitional low emission vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1

11/14/91 On-road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 

2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 

2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, 

& 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 2292.3, 2292.5, 

2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d)

12/12/91 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420-2427 01/09/92 Off-road

Phase II - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 

94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507 - 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Consumer products

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels. T 13, 

& 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 03/12/92 On-road

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not applicable

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel 

Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On-road

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 188

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not applicable

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 On-road

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems. T 13, 

CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test 

Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11/12/92 On-road

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products. 

T 17, CCR, 94507 - 94517 11/30/92 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic 

Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17, & 26, 

CCR, 93107

12/10/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 

60200-60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & 

Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 

1956.8(b)

12/10/92 On-road

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger 

Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900

01/14/93 On-road

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600, 

70601 03/11/93 Not applicable

1-year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for 

Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403-2407 04/08/93 Off-road

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90622, 

90621.4 04/08/93 Not applicable

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as 

Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 

39666

04/08/93 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/10/93 Not applicable

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 189

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90700-90705 07/08/93 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 On-road

Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 

70600 08/12/93 Not applicable

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene 

Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not applicable

Diesel Fuel Regulations - Emergency. T 13, CCR, 

2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Fuels

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200-60202, 

60204, 60206, 60208, 70300-70306 11/18/93 Not applicable

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2410-

2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 Off-road

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures. T 

13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 On-road

SCAQMD's RECLAIM Consideration 03/10/94 Stationary Sources

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not applicable

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262-2270 06/09/94 Fuels

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Fuels

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90700-90705 07/28/94 Not applicable

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Off-road

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 17, 

CCR, 94540-94555 09/22/94 Consumer products

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 

1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Fuels

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 190

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & 

Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 

1956.8(b)

11/09/94 On-road

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & 

Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On-road

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 On-road

Specification for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels 

(M100). T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan. T 

17, CCR, 94520-94528, 94540-94543, 94547... 03/23/95 Consumer products

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable

Employee-Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula. T 

13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-

94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On-road

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 On-road

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 

2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On-road

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and 

Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, CCR, 94500-94506, 

94508, 94521

09/28/95 Consumer products

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, CCR, 

1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate 

test procedures

09/28/95 On-road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Fuels
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 191

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control 

Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing 

procedures.

11/16/95 Fuels

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 

2266.5, 2260, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for 

Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test 

procedures

01/25/96 Off-road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave 

Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 60104, 

60109, 60114, 80280, 80311

05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301-

93355, Appendix A-E (emissions inventory) 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives). T 

13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, 

CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not applicable

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 

94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & OffHighway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off-road

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods . T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 192

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, 

Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, 

CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526

11/21/96 Consumer products

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not applicable

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Consumer products

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 On-road

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, 

CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Consumer products

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification 

Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Fuels

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 

2450-2465 03/27/97 Off-road

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air 

Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not applicable

Interchangeable Emissions Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 

91500 05/22/97 Not applicable

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements

for Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers. T 13, 

CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures

05/22/97 On-road

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) Amendments. 

T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and 

incorporate test procedures

07/24/97 On-road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic 

Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180-2188 and 

2190-2194

12/11/97 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 193

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 

17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400,2410-

2414 03/26/98 Off-road

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090-60095 04/23/98 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating. T

17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, CCR, 

Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 

2262.7 and 2265

08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-

94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 

94162

08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 17, CCR,

60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300-70306, 70303.1

10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, 

CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Off-road

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 -

94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 94137 

and revision of Method 12.

10/22/98 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and 

Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, 

CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965,

1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 

2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137-2140, 2143-2148

11/05/98 On-road

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2476 11/19/98 Off-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 194

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Consumer Products - LVP-VOC Definitions And Test 

Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 

94515 and 94526, and the amendment of ARB Method 

310

11/19/98 Consumer products

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants 

and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, 

and 94524

11/19/98 Consumer products

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 2415 12/10/98 Off-road

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off-road

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, 

CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On-road

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Off-road

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98 On-road

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor 

Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for 

MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273

06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94011, 

94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP-201, 

TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6

06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On-road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2478 09/23/99 Off-road

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60040 

and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid-Term 

Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 195

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 

2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc...

12/09/99 Fuels

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 

2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & appendix A to article 

2.1.

01/27/00 Off-road

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On-road

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 

80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 

80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 

80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 

80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330

03/23/00 Not applicable

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency 

Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station 

Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 

17, CCR, 94011

03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air 

Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair 

Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111

04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure. 

T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 94700, 

94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing 

Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 

95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, CCR,

80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR,

90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 196

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2265, 

2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 

2262.9 and incorporated test procedures

11/16/00 Fuels

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" Test 

Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On-road

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission 

Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8 &1961

12/07/00 On-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test 

Procedure

01/25/01 On-road

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization 

of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 

1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. T 

17, CCR, 93105

07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 

2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 

2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by 

reference

07/26/01 Off-road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip 

Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium 

and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR, 93112

09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and 

Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 

94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated 

procedures

10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test procedures 10/25/01 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 197

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 Other

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects. T 17, CCR, 

94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test 

procedures and guidelines

11/15/01 On-road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential 

Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & appendices 

C & D, and 2607-2610

02/21/02 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On-road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and InUse Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2700-2710 05/16/02 On-road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, 

and 70100.1

06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 

2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 

2265, and 2296

07/25/02 Fuels

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & 

documents incorporated by reference

10/24/02 On-road

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, CCR,

60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 On-road

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimis Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out 

Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 

2273, 2260, 2273.5

12/12/02 Fuels
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 198

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures. T 17, 

CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and 

procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, 

and incorporation by reference.

12/12/02 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine 

Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative 

changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 

2065 and documents incorporated by reference

12/12/02 On-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and 

documents incorporated by reference

03/25/03 On-road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Off-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, 

and 90803

07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 & T 

17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, 

and incorporated test procedure

07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 

2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On-road

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400-2409, 

2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755-

2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and the documents incorporated 

by reference

09/25/03 Off-road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for 

Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & 

documents incorporate by reference

12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and InUse Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, 

CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 199

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State 

PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, 

CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210

01/22/04 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 

1969 01/22/04 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 

93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5

02/26/04 Off-road

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR 

Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 2466

02/26/04 Off-road

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 

2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 On-road

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements 

for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines. T 

13, CCR, 1971

05/20/04 On-road

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for ParaDicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 

94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, 

and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 

06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, 

CCR, 2485

07/22/04 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, CCR,

94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects 

List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and 

Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 200

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 

2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 

(and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 

2266.5 

11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & Locomotives. T 

13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 

93117

11/18/04 Fuels

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension. 

T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T17, 

CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel 

Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, 

CCR, 93102.5

12/09/04 Not applicable

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 

60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 

2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4

02/24/05 On-road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, CCR,

93115

05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 

86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and 

Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD). 

T 13, CCR, 1971.1

07/21/05 On-road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 

2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 201

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines 

and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 

1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8

09/15/05 On-road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, CCR 

2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 

2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Off road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, CCR, 

2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and 

In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR 

section1956.8 and the incorporated document

10/20/05 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 2111, 

2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and 

incorporated document

11/17/05 Off-road

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric Engines 

Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within California 

Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 

T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118

12/08/05 Off-road

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated 

by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 

2022.1

12/08/05 On-road

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off-road

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program. 

T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 

2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189

01/26/06 On-road

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. T 13, 

CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 On-road

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 

1961,1976 and 1978.

05/25/06 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 202

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large OffRoad Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 

2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 

2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789.

05/26/06 Off-road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 94011 and 

incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 

2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 

2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465

06/22/06 Off-road

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by 

reference

07/20/06 Off-road

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 

1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 

2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On-road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207-942142 10/19/06 Other

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On-road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document 

incorporated by reference

11/16/06 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and 

Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). 

T 17, CCR, 93119

11/16/06 Off-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, Agricultural 

Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR, 93115.1-

93115.15.t.

11/16/06 Other

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not applicable

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 

94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer products
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 203

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment

Registration Program, Airborne Toxic Control Measures 

and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 

93116.3

12/06/06 Off-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and 

Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 17, CCR,

93102.1-93102.16

12/07/06 Not applicable

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D

12/07/06 On-road
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 204

B. State Rules that Do Not Address Ozone Precursors in the South Coast 

Nonattainment Area

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect direct 

ozone precursor emissions in the South Coast nonattainment area. These types of measures 

include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and 

controls for pollutants other than direct PM2.5 (or PM), NOx, VOC, or SO2. Appendix Table A-2 

provides a list of these measures.

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 

17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. T 17, 

& 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not an ozone precursor emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802-90803 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical 

Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Air toxics control measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600-

70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 205

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria 

and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-

93347

09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 60200-

60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant. 

T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non -Vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Non - Vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 

94142 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure.

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 

90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure. Obsolete.

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 

60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 80150, 

80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds 

as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, CCR, 

70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 206

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems. T 13, 

CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Air toxics control measure

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 

60200-60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600, 

70601 03/11/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as 

Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 

39666

04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90622, 

90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/10/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90700-90705 07/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 

70600 08/12/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene 

Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Air toxics control measure

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction 

measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 207

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200-60202, 

60204, 60206, 60208, 70300-70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90700-90705 07/28/94 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not an emissions reduction measure

Employee-Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula. T 

13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for 

Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test 

procedures

01/25/96 Carbon monoxide requirement

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave 

Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 60104, 

60109, 60114, 80280, 80311

05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301-

93355, Appendix A-E (emissions inventory) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, 

CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 

94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air 

Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 208

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Interchangeable Emissions Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 

91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700-90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations '97 . T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 

17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090-60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating. T

17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 -

94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 94137 

and revision of Method 12.

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60040 

and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 17, CCR,

60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300-70306, 70303.1

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emissions reduction measure

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 

80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 

80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 

80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 

80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330

03/23/00 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing 

Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Air toxics control measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 

95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 209

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, CCR,

80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00

Not a South Coast control measure

(Sacramento Valley air basin 

only)

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR,

90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reduction measure

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, 

and 70100.1

06/20/02 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, CCR,

60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not an emissions reduction measure

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, 

and 90803

07/24/03 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State 

PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, 

CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210

01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T17, 

CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 

60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 

86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document 

incorporated by reference

11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction 

measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 210

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the South Coast Nonattainment Area

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 211

C. State Fuel Measures

CARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean 

diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel 

standards for off-road sources. Appendix Table A-3 is a list of these revisions. 

Appendix Table A-3

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 

2255 06/21/90 Renumbered to section 2281. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 

2256 12/13/90

Renumbered to section 2282. 

Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

(listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)

Diesel Fuel Regulations - Emergency. T 13, CCR, 

2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 & T 

17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, 

and incorporated test procedure

07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel 

Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & Locomotives. T 

13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 

93117

11/18/04 See CARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I. T 

13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996. Obsolete.

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 

2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 

2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262-2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95

Section 2251.5 - obsolete; section 

2258 wintertime; section 2263, 

superseded
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 212

Appendix Table A-3

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measure

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control 

Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing 

procedures.

11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 

2266.5, 2260, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives). T 

13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Repealed sections

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, CCR, 

Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 

2262.7 and 2265

08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Wintertime gasoline for South Coast and Imperial County. 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for 

MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273

06/24/99 Not applicable to the SC

area/Obsolete

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 

2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc...

12/09/99

2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 

(designation of alternative limits) 

not approved; otherwise 

superseded by 11/18/04 and 

6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2265, 

2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 

2262.9 and incorporated test procedures

11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 

2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 

2265, and 2296

07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 213

Appendix Table A-3

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out 

Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 

2273, 2260, 2273.5

12/12/02

Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rule. Approved 75 FR 

26653 (5/12/10) (except for 

section 2272 (CARFG3 standards 

for small refineries) and 2273.5 

(requirement to identify gasoline 

containing ethanol when delivered 

to retail station)) 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 

2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 

(and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 

2266.5 

11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 

2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only. Obsolete.

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor 

Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emissionsreductions

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification 

Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 214

D. State On-Road Mobile Sources Measures

Appendix Tables A-4 and A-5 list measures adopted by CARB since 1990 for on-road 

and off-road sources.

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 & 

38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16, 1994(59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 

FR 46979 (9/13/94))

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 1900, 

1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 

2125, and 2139, 2061.

09/28/90

Waivers granted January 7, 1993 & 

April 6, 1998 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) 

& 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 

2180-2187 11/08/90 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and Light & 

Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 

FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity 

adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for 

M85 transitional low emission vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1

11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel 

Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 1960.1(k), 

1956.8(b), 1956.8(d)

3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit 

Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures. 

T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & 

Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 

1956.8(b)

12/10/92 Inspection program
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 215

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger 

Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900

01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 

FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93

Found within the scope September 

28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (October 6, 

2004))

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures. T 13, 

CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 

1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. T 

13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & 

Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04))

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 13, CCR, 

1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 

2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, CCR, 

1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate 

test procedures

09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested October 8, 1996.

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18, 2001 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for 

Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 

1976 and incorporate test procedures

05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 

1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 216

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures 

(SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorporate test 

procedures

07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 

(69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic 

Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180-2188 and 

2190-2194

12/11/97 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance 

Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 

(both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 

2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 

2130, 2137-2140, 2143-2148

11/05/98

Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 

FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within 

the scope (1999 ZEV amendments)

December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 

(12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, CCR, 

1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program. 

Revised 2/21/06 and 12/7/06

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, sections 

2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99

Removal of obsolete provisions, 

streamlining and other minor 

changes to 9/1990 rule.

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 

1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00

Combination of fleet requirements, 

emission standards, and zeroemission bus standards. Federal & 

state emission standards are the 

same for 2010 MY buses.

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment 

with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission Standards for 

Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961

12/07/00

Waiver granted for LDV & HDV 

April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 

(4/22/03))

Initial notice on within-the-scope 

finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 

27114 (May 14, 2007).

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" Test 

Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001.

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 217

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of 

Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 

1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 Found within the scope December 

21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later. T 

13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures 10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test procedures 

and guidelines

11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21, 

2005 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01

Compliance provision. Very similar 

to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1808.01

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & appendices C 

& D, and 2607-2610

02/21/02

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program. 

Revised 12/7/06.

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, CCR, 

1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (2/5/04)

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use 

Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2700-2710 05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology. 

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & 

documents incorporated by reference

10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements 

over 2000 rule.

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine 

Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative 

changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 

2065 and documents incorporated by reference

12/12/02

Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 

FR 50322 (8/26/05)) for all but 

HDGE. HDGE standards adopted to 

harmonize with EPA‘s. Initial notice 

on within-the-scope finding request 

for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (5/14/07).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from 

School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emissions reductions claimed.

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents 

incorporated by reference

03/25/03 Found within the scope December 

21, 2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 218

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 

2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03

Diesel reduction program. Minimal 

reductions. See CARB, ―Staff 

Report: Initial Statement Of 

Reasons, Proposed Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Residential and 

Commercial Solid Waste Collection

Vehicles,‖ June 6, 2003, p. 53.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from 

Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non-road) January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use 

Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, CCR, 

2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology. 

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 

1969 01/22/04

Compliance provision. Very similar 

to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1808.01

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 2011, 

2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 Compliance provision.

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 

2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines. T 13,

CCR, 1971

05/20/04 Waiver granted December 22, 2005

(71 FR 335 (1/4/06))

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4 06/24/04 Various modifications to urban/transit bus standards.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from 

Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04

CARB has requested that EPA 

confirm requirement is not 

preempted. Initial notice 75 FR 

43975 (7/27/10)

Greenhouse Gas Standards. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 

and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted June 30, 2009 (74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009)

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 

2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 

1956.4 

02/24/05 Diesel reduction program

On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and 

Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD). T 

13, CCR, 1971.1

07/21/05 Waiver granted August 13, 2008 (73 

FR 52042 (9/8/08))
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 219

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and 

the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 

1956.2, and 1956.8

09/15/05 & 

10/20/05

Aligns State emission standards with 

federal emission standards.

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and InUse Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR section 1956.8 

and the incorporated document

10/20/05

Confirm not pre-empted or within 

the scope finding requested. Initial 

notice 75 FR 43975 (7/27/2010)

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by 

Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1

12/08/05

Diesel reduction program. Minimal 

reductions. See CARB, ―Staff 

Report: Initial Statement Of 

Reasons, Proposed Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled 

Vehicles Owned or Operated By 

Public Agencies And Utilities,‖ 

October 21, 2005, p. 55.

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program. T 

13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 

2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189

01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission 

control labels.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. T 13, 

CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06

Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology, supporting rule for inuse control measures.

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 

1961,1976 and 1978.

05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 

2010 (75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010)).

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06

Compliance provision. Very similar 

to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1808.01

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 

2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested.

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 

1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06

Compliance provision. Compliance 

program "essentially identical to 

EPA's." See Updated Information 

Digest for the Rule.

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, 

& 2023.4 10/19/06

Delays ZEB requirements due to 

high bus costs and unproven 

durability, reliability and ability to 

produce the number of buses 

required by the regulation. See 

Updated Information Digest.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 220

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, CCR, 

2601-2610 and appendices A-D

12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program.

Appendix Table A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden 

Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90

Waiver granted July 5, 1995 (60 

FR 37440 (7/20/95)) 1-year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for 

Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403-2407 04/08/93

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 

(11/20/00))

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. CO 

Standards 1/25/96

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 

(11/20/00))

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400,

2410-2414 03/26/98

Within the scope finding

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 

(11/20/00)), waiver granted 

(durability requirements), 

November 10, 2003 (65 FR 65702

(11/21/03)). 

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400-2409, 

2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 

2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and the documents 

incorporated by reference

09/25/03 Waiver granted, December 11, 

2006 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2410-

2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted December 23, 1996 (61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 221

Appendix Table A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & OffHighway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 

(11/20/00))

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 2415 12/10/98 Within the scope finding request March 4, 2000

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03

Addition to March 4, 2000 request 

November 19, 2004. Made 

changes to riding season 

restrictions.

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by 

reference

07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission 

standards identical to EPA's.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420-

2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 

(11/20/00))

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 

2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & appendix A to article 

2.1.

01/27/00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 

(75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010)

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010))

In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2449 07/26/07

Notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment (on waiver), 

75 FR 11880 (3/12/2010). 

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, 

CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 2006 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large OffRoad Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 

2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 

2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789.

05/26/06

Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007; 

adopts more stringent standards 

for 2010. Waiver requested.

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq

12/10/98 Waiver granted March 22, 2007 

(59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007))
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 222

Appendix Table A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 

2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 

2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by 

reference

07/26/01

Waiver granted in part March 22, 

2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 

2007)) 2007 standards waiver 

granted April 26, 2011 (76 FR 

24872 (5/3/11))

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 2111, 

2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and 

incorporated document

11/17/05

Revision to year 2007 standards in 

7/26/2001 marine inboard engine 

standards. Waiver requested 

February 7, 2008. 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 

2450-2465 03/27/97

Revised by June 22, 2006 rule 

Waiver request 

withdrawn/replaced by favor of 

December 5, 2008 request

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR 

Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 2466

02/26/04 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 

93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5

02/26/04

Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and comment published 

February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7196)

Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested March 28, 2005.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 

2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 

2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465

06/22/06

Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and comment published 

February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)

Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment 

Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control Measures 

and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 

93116.3

12/06/06 Expired.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled Portable 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 2458, 2459, 

2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 93116.1, 93116.2, 

93116.3 , 93116.3.1

03/22/07

Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and comment published 

February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)

Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 223

Appendix Table A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, CCR, 

2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, CCR 

2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 

2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 

CFR part 59, subpart F.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 

2477

12/11/03

Waiver granted (non-road) 

January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 

(1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05

Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and comment published 

February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5586)

Within-the-scope finding and 

waiver request January 29, 2007

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 See Initial Statement of Reasons for Rule, p. II-1. 

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric Engines 

Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within California 

Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 

T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118

12/08/05

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and 

Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). 

T 17, CCR, 93119

11/16/06 Air toxics control measure

Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power). T 13, 

CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and documents 

incorporated by reference

12/06/07

Commercial Harbor Craft. T 13, CCR, 2222 and 

incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New 

Aftermarket Catalytic Converters"

11/15/07

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean-Going Vessel Main Engines and 

Auxiliary Boiler. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, CCR, 

section 93118.2

07/24/08 Proposed approval signed June 

29, 2011
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 224

E. State Consumer Product Measures

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for 20 years and 

continues to tighten standards and regulate more products. Appendix Table A-6 is a list of 

CARB‘s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990.

Appendix Table A-6

Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the

California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500-94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Consumer Products BAAQMD. T 17, CCR, 94520-94526 06/14/90 Not applicable to the South Coast

area

Phase I - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507-94517 10/11/90 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Phase II - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 

94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507 - 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products. 

T 17, CCR, 94507 - 94517 11/30/92 Not a control measure

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 17, 

CCR, 94540-94555 09/22/94 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan. T 

17, CCR, 94520-94528, 94540-94543, 94547. 03/23/95 Superseded by 6/22/00 rule.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and 

Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, CCR, 94500-94506, 

94508, 94521

09/28/95

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants;

superseded by 11/17/06 rule for 

consumer products; superseded 

by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol 

coating products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, 

Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, 

CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526

11/21/96

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants;

superseded by 11/17/16 rule for 

consumer products; superseded 

by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol 

coating products.

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, 

CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) Amendments. T 

17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 225

Appendix Table A-6

Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the

California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants 

and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, 

and 94524

11/19/98 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products - LVP-VOC Definitions And Test 

Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 

94515 and 94526, and the amendment of CARB Method 

310

11/19/98

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

test method 310 and 11/17/06 

rule for rest.

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid-Term 

Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure. 

T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 94700, 

94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for ParaDicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 

94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, 

and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by 

reference 

06/24/04

Approved November 4, 2009 (74 

FR 57074) (EO order date of 

5/6/05)

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 

94513 & 94523 11/17/06

Approved November 4, 2009 (74 

FR 57074) (EO order date 

9/16/07)
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 226

F. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB is required 

to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes CARB, 

in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, 

and develop test methods. The installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor recovery 

equipment is required and enforced by District Rules 461 and 462. Appendix Table A-7 is a list 

of rulemaking actions taken by CARB since 1990 that address vapor recovery equipment 

certification, defects, and/or test methods.

Appendix Table A-7

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-

94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95

CARB sets requirements for and 

certifies vapor recovery 

equipment. District rules establish 

requirements for the installation of 

CARB-certified equipment. See 

SCAQMD Rules 461 & 462

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-

94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 

94162

08/27/98

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94011, 

94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP-201, 

TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6

06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station 

Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 

17, CCR, 94011

03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency 

Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and 

Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 

94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated 

procedures

10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects. T 17, CCR, 

94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures. T 17, 

CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and 

procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, 

and incorporation by reference.

12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, CCR,

94011 07/22/04
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 227

Appendix Table A-7

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects 

List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension. 

T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 94011 and 

incorporated certification 06/22/06

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST). T 

17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94016 and 94168 and 

incorporated documents

06/21/07

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects 

List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 228

G. Other State Measures

A number of CARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in 

Appendix Tables A-2 through A-7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A-8.

Appendix Table A-8

Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from 

Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Small source category in South Coast

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic 

Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17 & 26, 

CCR, 93107

12/10/92

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air 

Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and 

Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111

04/27/00 Mainly addresses non-VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. 

T 17, CCR, 93105

07/26/01 Mainly addresses air toxics

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile 

Equipment Refinishing Coatings Containing 

Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. T 

17, CCR, 93112

09/20/01

Air toxic control measures 

prohibits additives with 

hexavalent chromium. Total 

emissions CA are less than 300 lb 

per year. ISOR, p. V-2.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 

17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01

Minimal impact, few units 

certified. See ISOR for 9/28/06 

rule amendment

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & 

documents incorporate by reference

2/26/04

PM control measure. PM 

reductions are expected to be 

achieved primarily by replacement 

of existing engines as a result of 

District rule.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 229

Appendix Table A-8

Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, 

CCR, 93102.5

12/09/04

Air toxic control measures. Total 

emissions (chromium & nickel in 

CA are less than 200 lb per year.

ISOR, p. IV-6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115

05/26/053/17/05 Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM 

control measure. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In-Use 

Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR,

93115.1-93115.15.t.

11/16/06

PM control measure. PM 

reductions are expected to be 

achieved primarily by replacement 

of existing engines as a result of 

District rule.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 

17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207-

942142

10/19/06

Addition of 2013 standards NOx

and VOC standards for DG units 

which burn waste gas.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating 

and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 17, CCR,

93102.1-93102.16

12/07/06

Air toxic control measures. Total 

emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per 

year. ISOR, p. 49.
TSD for the Final Approval

of the South Coast 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan December 15, 2011

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

EPA- Region 9 230

Appendix B – SCAQMD Rules
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

223 Large Confined Animal Feeding 

Operations 6/2/06 3/17/09 n/a n/a Baseline measure

401 Visible Emissions 11/09/01 7/10/84 1/29/85 50 FR 3907 Baseline measure

403 Fugitive Dust 6/3/05 10/20/05 03/10/08 73 FR 12639 Baseline measure

431.2. Sulfur Content Of Liquid Fuels 9/15/00 12/31/90 06/08/99 64 FR 30396 Baseline measure

442 Usage Of Solvents 12/15/00 05/08/01 05/23/02 67 FR 36105 Baseline measure

444 Open Burning 11/7/08 1/22/02 4/8/02 67 FR 16644 Baseline and control 

strategy measure

445 Wood Burning Devices 03/07/08 07/18/08 6/11/2009 74 FR 27716 Control Strategy 

measure

461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 03/07/08 10/20/05 4/11/06 71 FR 18216 Baseline and control 

strategy measure

462 Organic Liquid Loading 05/14/99 06/03/99 07/21/99 64 FR 39037 Baseline measure

463 Organic Liquid Storage 05/6/05 10/20/05 01/04/07 72 FR 267 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1102 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners 11/7/2000 5/08/01 7/17/02 67 FR 46876 Baseline measure

1103 Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics 

Manufacturing 3/12/99 5/13/99 7/21/99 64 FR 39037 Baseline measure

1104 Wood Flat Stock Coating Operation 8/13/99 10/29/99 3/22/00 65 FR 15240 Baseline measure

1105 Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units - SOx 9/1/84 2/6/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1105.1 Reduction of PM and NH3 emissions 

from Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units 11/7/03 6/3/04 1/4/06 71 FR 241 Baseline measure

1106 Marine Coating Operations 1/13/95 2/24/95 7/14/95 60 FR 36225 Baseline measure

1106.1 Pleasure Craft Coating Operations 2/12/99 6/3/99 8/31/99 64 FR 47390 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1107 Coating of Metal Parts and Products 1/6/06 5/8/07 11/24/08 73 FR 70883 Baseline and control 

strategy measure

1108 Cutback Asphalt 2/1/85 4/12/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1108.1 Emulsified Asphalt 11/4/83 10/25/84 1/24/85 50 FR 3338 Baseline measure

1109

NOx Emissions from Boilers and 

Process Heaters – Petroleum 

Refineries

8/5/88 3/26/90 1/13/00 65 FR 2052 Baseline measure

1110.2 Emissions from Gaseous and Liquid 

Fueled Engines 2/1/08 5/20/08 4/17/09 74 FR 18995 Control strategy measure

1111 NOx emissions from Natural-GasFired, Fan type Central Furnaces 11/6/09 5/17/10 8/4/10 75 FR 46845 Control strategy measure 

1112 NOx from Cement Kilns 6/6/86 10/10/86 6/25/90 55 FR 25832 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1112.1 PM from Cement Kilns 12/4/09 7/20/10 09/2/98 63 FR 46659 Baseline and control 

strategy measure

1113 Architectural coatings 7/13/07 3/07/08 8/17/11 76 FR 50891 Baseline and control 

strategy measure

1115 Motor Vehicle Assembly Line 

Coating Operations 5/12/95 6/16/95 7/14/95 60 FR 36225 Baseline measure

1117 NOx emissions from Glass Melting 

Furnaces 1/6/84 2/6/85 7/12/90 55 FR 28624 Baseline measure

1118 Refinery flares 11/4/05 10/5/06 8/28/07 72 FR 49196 Baseline measure

1121 Control of NOx from Residential type 

natural-gas-fired water heaters 9/3/04 7/18/08 5/6/09 74 FR 20880 Baseline and control strategy measure

1122 Solvent Degreasers 10/1/04 1/13/05 2/8/06 71 FR 6350 Baseline measure

1123 Refinery Process Turnarounds 12/7/90 5/13/91 8/11/92 57 FR 35758 Baseline measure

1124 Aerospace Assembly and Component 

Manufacturing Operations 9/21/01 1/22/02 8/13/02 67 FR 52611 Baseline measure 

1125 Metal Container, Closure, and Coil 

Coating Operations 03/7/08 4/6/09 12/21/09 74 FR 67844 Baseline and control strategy measure

1126 Magnet Wire Coating Operations 1/13/95 2/24/95 6/13/95 60 FR 31081 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1127 Emissions Reductions from Livestock 

Waste 8/6/04 10/5/06 n/a n/a Control strategy measures

1128 Paper, Fabric, and Film Coating 

Operations 3/8/96 7/23/96 5/4/99 64 FR 23774 Baseline measure

1130 Graphic Arts 10/8/99 1/21/00 9/13/00 65 FR 55201 Baseline measure

1130.1 Screen Printing Operations 12/13/96 3/3/97 8/21/98 63 FR 44792 Baseline measure

1131 Food Product Manufacturing and 

Processing Operations 6/6/03 8/11/03 1/22/04 69 FR 3018 Baseline measure

1132 Further Control of VOC from High 

Emitting Spray Booths 5/5/06 1/10/10 4/26/04 69 FR 22445 Baseline measure

1133, 1133.1, 

1133.2 Composting and Related Operations 1/10/03 6/5/03 7/21/04 69 FR 43518 Baseline measure

1134 NOx from Stationary Gas Turbines 8/8/97 3/10/98 8/1/00 65 FR 46873 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1135 NOx from Electric Power Generating 

Systems 7/9/91 1/28/92 8/11/98 63 FR 42721 Baseline measure

1136 Wood Products Coatings 6/14/96 8/28/96 8/18/98 63 FR 44132 Baseline measure

1137 PM10 Reduction from Woodworking 

Operations 2/1/02 11/9/02 1/22/04 69 FR 3018 Baseline measure

1138 Control of Emissions from Restaurant 

Operations 11/14/97 3/10/98 7/11/01 66 FR 36170 Baseline measure

1140 Abrasive Blasting 8/2/85 11/12/85 09/28/81 46 FR 47451 Baseline measure

1141 Control of VOC Emissions from 

Resin Manufacturing 11/17/00 3/14/01 8/13/02 67 FR 52611 Baseline measure

1141.1 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 11/17/00 3/14/01 2/12/02 67 FR 6410 Baseline measure

1141.2 Surfactant Manufacturing 1/11/02 5/21/02 8/26/03 68 FR 51181 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1142 Marine Tank Vessel Operations 7/19/91 01/28/92 12/13/94 59 FR 64132 Baseline measure

1143 Consumer paint thinners and 

multipurpose solvents 12/3/10 4/5/11 11/16/11 76 FR 70888 Control strategy measure

1144 Metalworking fluids and direct 

contact lubricants 7/9/10 4/5/11 11/16/11 76 FR 70888 Control strategy measure

1145 Plastic, Rubber, Leather and Glass 

Coatings 12/3/09 5/17/10 07/14/10 75 FR 40726 Control strategy measure

1146

NOx from Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters

9/5/08 7/20/10 7/8/2011

Proposed limited 

approval/limited 

disapproval: 76 

FR 40303

Control strategy 

measure

1146.1

NOx from Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters

9/5/08 7/20/10 7/8/2011

Proposed limited 

approval/limited 

disapproval: 76 

FR 40303

Control strategy 

measure

1146.2 NOx from Large Water Heaters and 

Small Boilers

5/5/06 3/7/08 12/5/08 73 FR 74027 Baseline measure

1147 NOx Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Sources 12/5/08 5/17/10 8/4/10 75 FR 46845 Control strategy measure

Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery 11/5/82 2/3/83 10/19/84 49 FR 41028 Baseline measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1148 Wells

1148.1 Oil and gas production wells 03/05/04 01/10/10 9/29/11 76 FR 60377 Baseline measure

1149 Storage Tank Degassing 05/02/08 04/06/09 12/21/09 74 FR 67821 Control strategy measure

1150.1 Control of Gaseous Emissions from 

Active Landfills 03/17/00 07/26/00 07/01/02 67 FR 44062 Baseline measure

1151

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment 

Non-Assembly Line Coating 

Operations

12/02/05 06/04/09 12/29/09 74 FR 68759 Baseline measure

1153 Commercial Bakery Ovens 01/13/95 02/24/95 08/08/95 60 FR 40285 Baseline measure

1156 PM10 Emissions Reductions from 

Cement Manufacturing 3/6/09 4/29/09 3/10/08 73 FR 12639 Control strategy measure

1157 PM10 Emissions Reductions from 

Aggregate and Related Operations 9/8/06 5/17/10 11/22/11

Proposed 

approval 

76 FR 72142

Baseline and control 

strategy measure

1158 Storage, Handling and Transport of 

Petroleum Coke 7/11/08 12/23/08 11/10/09 74 FR 57907 Control strategy measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1159 Nitric Acid Units - NOx- 12/6/85 2/10/86 7/12/90 55 FR 28622 Baseline measure

1162 Polyester Resin Operations 7/8/05 4/6/09 2/12/02 67 FR 6410 Baseline measure

1164 Semiconductor Manufacturing 1/13/95 2/24/95 2/1/96 61 FR 3579 Baseline measure

1166 VOC Emissions from Decontaminated 

Soil 7/14/95 10/13/95 8/17/98 63 FR 43884 Baseline measure

1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications 1/7/05 4/29/09 12/12/03 68 FR 69320 Baseline measure

1171 Solvent Cleaning Operations 02/01/08 4/5/11 7/27/04 69 FR 44599 Baseline and control 

strategy measure

1173 Fugitive VOC Emissions 2/6/09 1/10/10 5/5/10 75 FR 24406 Baseline and control 

strategy measure
Table Appendix B -1

Status of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules

for NOx, VOC, PM, and SOx

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approval

Federal 

Register Cite Comments

1174 Control of VOC Emissions from the 

Ignition of Barbecue Charcoal 10/5/90 5/13/91 10/4/94 59 FR 50498 Baseline measure

1175

Control of Emissions from the 

Manufacture of Polymeric Cellular 

(Foam) Products

9/7/07 3/7/08 5/5/10 75 FR 24406 Baseline measure and 

control strategy measure

1176 Sumps and Wastewater Separators 9/3/96 11/26/96 10/7/02 67 FR 62376 Baseline measure

1178

Further Reductions of VOC Emissions 

From Storage Tanks at Petroleum 

Facilities

12/21/01 5/21/02 8/26/03 68 FR 51181 Baseline measure

1179 Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

Operations 3/6/92 9/14/92 10/4/94 58 FR 50498 Baseline measure

1186

PM10 Emissions from Paved and 

Unpaved Roads and Livestock 

Operations

7/11/08 12/23/08 11/14/05 70 FR 69081 Baseline and control 

strategy measure.

1189 Emission from Hydrogen Plant 

Process Vents 1/21/00 7/26/00 6/8/01 66 FR 30815 Baseline measure

2000-2015 RECLAIM 11/4/10 4/5/11 August 12, 

2011 76 FR 50128 Baseline and control 

strategy measure