Technical Support Document 

for the 

Proposed Action 

on the 

San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan 

and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the 

2007 State Strategy

Air Division 

U.S. EPA Region 9 

September 8, 2011 
For further information on this technical support document, please contact: 

Frances Wicher 

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105 

(415) 972-3957 

wicher.frances@epa.gov 

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

rulemaking, docket no. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0589, which may be found at www.regulations.gov 

or at the address listed above. 
Table of Contents

i 

I. Introduction and Background

A. The 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1

1. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1

a. Level and Form of the Standard 1

b. Health Effects 2

2. Implementing the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 2

a. Designations 2

b. California’s Request for Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley 1997 8-hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area 4

c. 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard Planning Requirements 4

B. Ozone Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley 5

C. California’s Submittals Constituting the SJV 8-Hour Ozone Standard State Implementation 

Plan 7

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP Submittals 8

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 8

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals 9

II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

A. Emissions Inventories 12

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 12

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 8-Hour Ozone SIP 13

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 17

B. Air Quality Modeling 20

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 20

2. Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 20

a. Conceptual Description 21

b. Modeling Protocol 22

c. Air Quality Model Selection 23

d. Episode Selection 25

e. Model Domain and Spatial Resolution 26

f. Initial and Boundary Conditions 27

g. Meteorological Model Selection and Setup 28

h. Meteorological Model Performance 30

i. Emission Inventory 32

j. Air Quality Model Performance 33

k. Modeled Attainment Test 36
Table of Contents

ii 

l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 37

m. Weight of Evidence Determination 39

3. Conclusions 41

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures 43

1. Requirements for RACM 43

2. RACM Analysis in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 44

a. District RACM Analysis 44

b. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 47

c. State’s RACM Analysis 48

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 52

D. Control Strategy 55

1. Requirements for Control Strategies 55

2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 56

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 56

b. CARB Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 67

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 73

a. Baseline Measures 73

i. Section 209 Waiver Measures 74

ii. Non-waiver measures 78

b. Control Strategy 78

E. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision 80

1. Requirements of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision 80

2. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

81

3. Evaluation and Conclusion 84

F. Attainment Demonstration 86

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations 86

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 86

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 89

a. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstrations 89

b. Attainment Demonstration 93

G. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 95

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 95

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 96
Table of Contents

iii 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 96

H. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset 

Emissions Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment 103

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and TCM to Offset Emissions 

Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment 103

2. Transportation Control Strategies and TCM to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT 

Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 103

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 104

I. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers 106

1. Requirement for the Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers 106

2. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers Requirements in the SJV 2007 

Ozone Plan 106

3. Evaluation and Conclusion 107

J. Contingency Measures 110

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 110

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 111

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 111

K. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 114

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 114

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 114

3. January 8, 2009 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 115

4. Proposed Action on the Revised MVEBs 116

L. Status of Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas 127

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs 127

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program 127

3. New Source Review Rule 127

4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program 128

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery 128

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 128

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program 129
Table of Contents

iv 

Appendix A – State Measures

A. Complete List of State Measures 1

B. State Rules that Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 18

C. State Fuel Measures 24

D. State On-Road Mobile Sources Measures 27

E. State Consumer Product Measures 36

F. State Vapor Recovery Measures 38

G. Other State Measures 40

Appendix B – SJVAPCD Rules
Acronyms 

v 

AB: California Assembly Bill 

ACT: Alternative Control Techniques 

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

APPB” peak bias (modeling term) 

APPE: peak error (modeling term) 

ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB) 

APCD: air pollution control district 

AQMD: air quality management district 

BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repair 

CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 

CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB) 

CCOS: Central California Ozone Study 

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 

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds 

CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality [model] 

CO: carbon monoxide 

CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines 

DDM: direct decoupled method (modeling term) 

District: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Agency 

DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

EMFAC: EMmission FACtor mobile source model 

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FBC: fluidized bed combustion 

FDDA: four dimensional data assimilation (modeling term) 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration 

Fine particulate: PM2.5

FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program 

FR: Federal Register 

FRM: Federal Reference Method 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration 

HDDT: Heavy duty diesel truck 

I/C: internal combustion 

ICI: Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

IOP: intensive operational periods (modeling term) 

km: kilometer 

m: meter 

m3

: cubic meter 

mb: millibars 

MCR: mid-course review 
Acronyms 

vi 

MFB: mean fractional bias 

MFE: mean fractional error 

MM5: a mesoscale model, version 5 

MMPR: meteorological model performance analysis 

MNB: mean normalized bias 

MNGE: unpaired peak ratio 

MOZART: Model for Ozone And Related Chemical Tracers 

MPO: metropolitan planning organization 

MSY: milestone year 

MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget 

NA: not available 

N/A: not applicable 

NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard 

NB: normalized bias 

NNSR: nonattainment area new source review 

NO2: nitrogen dioxide 

NOx: oxides of nitrogen 

NOA: notice of availability (of recommendations for designations) 

NSR: new source review 

NYQ: not yet quantified 

O3: ozone 

OTAQ: EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

PA: process analysis (modeling term) 

PAMS: Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations 

PCA: principal component analysis 

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 

PBL: Planetary Boundary Layer (modeling term) 

PSD: prevention of significant deterioration (new source permitting program) 

RACM: reasonably available control measures 

RACT: reasonably available control technology 

RFP: reasonable further progress 

ROG: reactive organic gases 

RRF: relative response factor 

RTP: regional transportation plan 

SC: South Coast 

SCR: selective catalytic reduction 

SIP: state implementation plan 

SJV: San Joaquin Valley 

SJVAB: San Joaquin Valley air basin 

SJV(U)APCD: San Joaquin Valley (Unified) Air Pollution Control District 

SNCR: Selective non-catalytic reduction 

TCM: transportation control measures 

tpd: tons per day 
Acronyms 

vii 

tpy tons per year 

TIP: transportation improvement program 

TSD: technical support document 

UAA: unmonitored area analysis (modeling term) 

UPR: unpaired peak ratio (modeling term) 

VMT: vehicle miles traveled 

VOC: volatile organic compounds 

WOE: weight of evidence 
I. Introduction and Background 
EPA-Region 9 Page 1

Technical Support Document 

Proposed Rulemaking Action on the 

San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan and Related Portions 

of the Revised 2007 State Strategy 

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking action on the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s 2007 Ozone Plan

(adopted April 30, 2007, revised December 18, 2008 and July 21, 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 and revised and updated 

on April 24, 2009 and July 21, 2011). It describes the Clean Air Act requirements for 8-hour 

ozone plans and EPA’s regulations and policies interpreting these requirements. It also describes 

the elements of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy that address these 

requirements and EPA’s evaluation of whether the State’s submittals meet these requirements. 

A. The 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

1. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

a. Level and Form of the Standard 

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 standards set at a stricter level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 62 

FR 38856.1,2 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). 

 1

 EPA promulgated the 1-hour ozone standards of 0.12 ppm in 1979. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 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 in June 2005. 40 CFR § 50.9(b), 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

2

 In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary and secondary ozone standards and 

tightened them further by lowering the level for both to 0.075 ppm. The form of the standards remained unchanged. 

60 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). References to the 8-hour ozone standard in this TSD are to the 1997 standard unless 

otherwise noted. 

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 standards 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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, 

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 also been associated with increased hospitalizations 

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

productivity as a consequence of ozone-related respiratory symptoms. 

Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems. Ozone can irritate the 

respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, an uncomfortable sensation in the chest, 

and/or pain when breathing deeply. Ozone can worsen asthma and possibly other respiratory 

diseases, such as bronchitis and emphysema. When ozone levels are high, more people with 

asthma have attacks that require a doctor’s attention or the use of additional medication. Ozone 

can reduce lung function and make it more difficult to breathe deeply, and breathing may 

become more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person’s normal activity. In 

addition, breathing ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to 

permanent changes in lung tissue, irreversible reductions in lung function, and a lower quality of 

life if the inflammation occurs repeatedly over a long time period. People who are particularly 

susceptible to the effects of ozone include children, adults who are active outdoors, people with 

respiratory disease (such as asthma), and people with unusual sensitivity to ozone. 62 FR 33856, 

33859. 

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

welfare effects 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 as either attainment or nonattainment 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 to EPA air quality 

designations, 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. 

EPA then 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. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 2
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 3

For the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-first 

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

additional year (to July 2000). Additional Congressional action restricted EPA’s authority to 

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

in the litigation challenging the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

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 the uncertainties due to the ongoing litigation on the 8-hour 

ozone standard, 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 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 SJV air basin be designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard.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 

recommendation for designating the San Joaquin Valley air basin as nonattainment. EPA, 

however, proposed to expand the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area to include the 

mountain counties of Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa.5 On December 10, 2003, we 

published a NOA announcing the availability of our letters to California and other states that 

described our intended modifications to their recommendations. See 68 FR 68805. In our letters, 

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

modifications were not appropriate. 

On February 4, 2004, California responded to our proposed modification to its 

recommendations on boundaries for the SJV nonattainment area, requesting that we exclude the 

four mountain counties from the SJV nonattainment area. On April 15, 2004, we designated the 

SJV air basin, excluding the four mountain counties, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and classified the area as “serious” under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR § 

51.903(a), Table 1.6

 See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 (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 starts the process whereby a state 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 

 4

 See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, June 15, 2003. 

5

 See Letter, Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, 

Governor of California, December 3, 2003. 

6

 See Letter, Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator, EPA, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of 

California, April 15, 2004. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 4

(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.7

40 CFR §§ 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B) and 51.908(a). 

b. California’s Request for Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley 1997 8-hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area. 

As part of California’s submittal for the San Joaquin Valley 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the State requested that EPA reclassify the area from “serious” to “extreme” 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA.8

 

CAA 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 standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 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 on May 5, 2010 and reclassified the San Joaquin Valley 

to extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 

24409. Because the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan was developed to address the CAA’s extreme area 

planning requirements, California was not required to make additional SIP submittals in response 

to this reclassification. 

c. 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard Planning Requirements 

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

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

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

the CAA as 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 1 rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard; revocation of the 1-

hour ozone standard; anti-backsliding principles for 1-hour ozone requirements; attainment 

dates; and the timing of emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 

2004). 9

 The Phase II rule addresses, among other things, the requirements for reasonably 

 7

 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 24 

and 27 months after the effective date of designation, respectively. 40 CFR §§ 51.915 and 51.912(a)(2). 

8

 See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-04-11a (April 30, 2007), p. 4; CARB Resolution 

No. 07-20 (June 14, 2007), p. 6; and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 17, 2007. 

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

initial promulgation in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 (August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 5

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. 

The ozone implementation rule covers 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. Ozone Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area is located in the southern part of 

California’s Central Valley. It is home to almost 4 million people and is the nation’s leading 

agricultural area. Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it 

is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the 

south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the east. In total, the SJV ozone nonattainment area 

encompasses over 23,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, 

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. See Figure 

IB-2. The local air district is the San Joaquin Valley [Unified] Air Pollution Control District 

(SJV[U]APCD or District). 

Ozone levels in the San Joaquin Valley are the highest along the eastern side of the 

Valley from just north of Fresno to south of Bakersfield. Since 2000, the SJV has seen a 

generally steady decline in ozone levels and days over the standard. 10 See Figure I-1 and Table 

I-1. 

 80420 (December 22, 2010). None of these revisions affect any provision of the rule that is applicable to EPA’s 

proposed actions on the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP. 

10 A design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific methodology to evaluate 

monitored air quality data and is used to determine whether an area’s air quality meets a NAAQS. The methodology 

for calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 6

FIGURE I-1 

8-Hour Ozone Trends in the San Joaquin Valley from 2000 to 2010

TABLE I-1 

Days over the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Standard by County from 2000 to 2010 

County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Change 

2000-2010 

San 

Joaquin 10 13 14 15 7 1 23 6 16 8 4 -60% 

Stanislaus 29 23 40 40 13 17 25 5 30 18 11 -62% 

Merced 66 61 89 92 47 20 30 18 33 15 14 -79% 

Madera 30 37 40 42 7 5 15 5 24 13 19 -37% 

Fresno 118 145 146 138 61 62 74 40 67 54 46 -61% 

Kings 91 43 62 45 25 24 46 26 42 37 83 -55% 

Tulare 120 130 127 132 119 84 104 94 106 83 78 -35% 

Kern 115 123 126 144 133 92 110 91 106 83 69 -40% 

Source: U.S. EPA’s Air Quality Systems database AMP300 report (August 18, 2011). Exceptional events that have 

been concurred on by EPA were excluded from the calculations. Only one violation per day per county was included 

in the calculations.
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 7

C. California’s Submittals Constituting the SJV 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

State Implementation Plan

Five submittals or parts of submittals comprise the SIP for attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard attainment in the SJV. We will refer to these five submittals or parts of submittals 

collectively as the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP: 

1. 2007 Ozone Plan, adopted on April 30, 2007 by the SJVAPCD and on June 14, 2007 by 

CARB, submitted with the adopting resolutions and other supporting documentation by 

CARB on June 30, 2008. Additional technical information supporting the reasonable 

further progress demonstrations was submitted on February 1, 2008. See San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a: In 

the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; CARB Resolution No. 07-20, June 14, 2007; letter, 

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

EPA Region 9, November 16, 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 Ozone Plan, the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, or simply 

the Plan. 

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

and adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB, 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 on April 24, 2009 by CARB, submitted with the adopting resolution 

and other supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009.11 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 2009 State Strategy Status Report. 

4. Amendments to the 2007 Ozone Plan (amending the rulemaking schedule for Measure SGOV-5 Organic Waste Operations) adopted on December 18, 2008 by the SJVAPCD, 

submitted with adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on 

April 24, 2009. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18, December 

 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. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 8

18, 2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, April 24, 2009, with enclosures. 

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, adopted by CARB on July 21, 2011 and submitted with 

adopting resolution and other supporting information by CARB on July 29, 2011. See 

CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 

2011, with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal 

Register proposal as the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions.12

Future references to the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 Ozone Plan in this TSD and the 

Federal Register proposal will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 and the Plan as 

revised in 2008 and 2011 unless explicitly noted otherwise. 

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

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

1. CARB, ARB Staff Report to the Air Resources Board: Accelerating San Joaquin Valley 

Air Quality Progress, November 6, 2007. 

2. SJVAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, May 2011 (SJV Ozone MCR). 

3. CARB, 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, 

April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress Report). 

4. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

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

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP 

Submittals

1. Public Notice and 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. To meet this requirement, 

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 SJVUAPCD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2007 

Ozone Plan. The District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and 

 12 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions is submitted as a SIP revision. See July 29, 2011 

Goldstene letter. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 9

held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2007. See SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution, 07-04-11a, April 30, 2007page 3. CARB also provide the required 

public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its June 14, 2007 public hearing on the 

Plan. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley 

2007 Ozone Plan,” May 15, 2007. The District also provided the required public notice and 

hearing on the 2008 revision to the Plan. See SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-

18, December 18, 2008, p. 2. 

CARB also 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 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 and its July 21, 2011 adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions.13

Each of the five SIP submittals that comprise the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP includes 

proof of publication for notices of SJVAPCD and CARB public hearings as evidence that all 

hearings were properly noticed. 

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 be deemed complete 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 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 legallyadopted 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 became 

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). 

 13 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; CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 

2009; 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 Proposed Revisions for the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical 

Revisions to the PM2.5 SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,” June 20, 2011; and CARB Resolution No. 11- 22, 

July 21, 2011. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 10

The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the April 24, 2009 

submittal of amendments to that Plan went complete by operation of law on May 16, 2009 and 

October 24, 2009, respectively. The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and 

the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions to the Strategy went complete by operation 

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

We found the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete on August 23, 2011. See letter, 

Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, CARB, August 23, 2011. 
II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 12

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each state with an ozone nonattainment area classified as 

marginal or above to submit, within two years of the 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). Id. 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–05–001, November 2005 (“EI Guidance”). EPA developed the EI 

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

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

SIPs.14 

For areas that were initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard in 

2004, EPA recommends using calendar year 2002 as the base year for the inventory required by 

CAA section 182(a)(1). EI Guidance, p. 8.15

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 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 at 32854 and 70 FR 71666. For California, the 

latest emissions model is the most recently EPA-approved version of EMFAC, EMFAC2007. 

See 68 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). 

The emissions inventory required under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule is a SIP 

provision that must be approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k) and is subject to the public 

hearing requirements of sections 110(a)(2) and (l). For areas classified under subpart 2, the 

emissions inventory submittal is 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 at 71664 and memorandum, John Calcagni and William 

 14 By “future year baseline inventories” or “projected baseline inventories, we mean projected emissions 

inventories for future years that account for, among other things, the ongoing effects of economic growth and 

adopted emissions control requirements. 

15 See also, Memorandum, Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis to Regional Air Division Directors, “2002 

Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,” November 18, 

2002. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/meta.442.1.2002baseinv.pdf and the docket for 

this proposal.
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 13

Laxton, OAQPS-EPA, “Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base-Year Emissions Inventories 

for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” September 29, 1992. 

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

inventories as part of the reasonable further progress demonstration required by CAA sections 

182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B). The requirements for RFP baseline inventories will be discussed in 

section II.G. of this TSD. 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 8-Hour Ozone SIP

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

the emissions inventories in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. We are not proposing any SIP action on 

the statewide inventory here, only on the SJV inventory. 

CARB submitted statewide inventories for the ozone precursors, NOx and VOC,16 as part 

of the 2007 State Strategy. See Appendix A for the emissions inventory output tables and 

Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory. Summer planning inventories are 

provided for the base year of 2002 and baseline years of 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023.17 These statewide emissions inventories 

are assembled and maintained by CARB in the California Emissions Inventory Development and 

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

System (CEFS) databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F. 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 are summer season planning inventories on which the 

2007 State Strategy is based. Inventories for future years (also known as baseline inventories) 

incorporate reductions from control measures adopted prior to December 2006 and are projected 

from the 2002 base year inventory. 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 and can also be found in Appendix B to the SJV 2007 Ozone 

SIP. 

The base year and future baseline planning inventories for NOx and VOC for the SJV 

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

Appendix B of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. Summer average day (May through October) are 

provided for the base year 2002, 2005 (which was included for control measure development), 

and the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. Inventories are also provided for 2012 

(the attainment year for serious areas, SJV initial classification) 2018 (the attainment date for 

severe areas), and 2023 (the attainment year for extreme areas, SJV’s current classification). Onroad motor vehicle emissions are estimated using EMFAC2007. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. B-1. The 

 16 CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we use the term VOC. These terms are 

essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC to mean either VOC or ROG. 

17 The 2007 State Strategy addresses both 8-hour ozone standards 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 (e.g., 2009). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 14

inventories in 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix B are consistent with the inventories in the 2007 State 

Strategy, Appendix A. 

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

of the inventories cited above specifically shows emissions of CO or emissions from nonanthropogenic sources (that is, biogenic or natural sources) although inventories developed for 

input into the air quality modeling do include CO emissions and non-anthropogenic sources. See 

information at http://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/. 

A summary of the 2002 base year, 2005, and the baseline inventories for the years 2005, 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 from the 2007 Ozone Plan as submitted in November 

2007 is provided in Table A-1 below. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

TABLE A-1 

Emissions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment A

Incorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2007 

(tons per summer day) 

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Stationary Sources 87.6 79.8 81.5 82.8 84.3 85.8 Area Sources 141.8 140.5 143.9 148.4 154.4 160.5 On-Road Mobile Sources 113.9 101.7 85.2 73.1 61.1 52.1 Off-Road Mobile Sources 76.3 76.6 70.9 66.2 61.9 59.4 Adjustments1 54.3 60.22 49.1 40.1 45.6 46.1 Total 473.9 458.8 430.6 410.7 407.3 403.8 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Stationary Sources 119.8 114.5 108.0 108.9 109.9 110.6 Area Sources 11.5 11.3 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 On-Road Mobile Sources 323.5 336.5 328.4 276.4 219.8 173.3 Off-Road Mobile Sources 183.5 167.6 150.2 134.9 117.5 102.2 Adjustments1 4.0 8.42 -32.0 -36.4 -38.7 -35.9 Total 642.3 638.3 565.7 494.9 419.5 361.2 Source: SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-3 and B-4. 1 Adjustments are the sum of District and CARB adjustments from Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B to the 2007 Ozone Plan. 2 CARB did not provide adjustments for 2005, value represents District adjustments only.EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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

As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB submitted revised base year and future 

year baseline inventories. These revisions were the result of several factors include revised 

inventorying 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 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 certain categories of 

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 

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. 

SJVAPCD has also made revisions to the base year and baseline inventories since 

submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan. These revisions include developing a new methodology for 

estimating NOx emissions from industrial equipment for which natural gas consumption or 

emissions are not reported for individual sources. The initial emissions estimates for these 

“unspecified” manufacturing and industrial natural gas consumption sources in the 2007 Ozone 

Plan came from an estimate developed in the early 1990s. After reviewing this emissions 

estimates for this category and being unable substantiate them, the District developed a new 

methodology for estimating emissions in this category. The revised methodology substantially 

reduced the estimate of NOx emissions from this category. See Table A-2 below. See also 

SJVAPCD, “2007 Area Sources Emissions Inventory Methodology, 050-Industrial Natural Gas 

Combustion,” June 13, 2006. 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 16
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE A-2 

Emissions Inventory Revisions for Unspecified Manufacturing and Industrial 

Natural Gas Combustion 

(tons per summer day) 

2006 2012 2017 2020 2023 

Emissions estimate in 2007 Ozone 

Plan 32.5 35.5 38.4 39.8 40.3 

Revised estimate 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 

Change 31.3 34.3 37.0 38.4 38.8 

Source: CARB, “ARB Staff Report to the Air Resources Board: Accelerating San Joaquin Valley Air Quality 

Progress,” November 6, 2007, p. 6.

The District also made revisions to the methodology for estimating emissions from 

agricultural burning of prunings and field crops and weed abatement. See SJVAPCD, “2007 

Area Sources Emissions Inventory Methodology, 670-Agricultural Burning,” June 9, 2008. 

Many of these changes inventory improvements were made in the period between adoption of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix B, December 2007. 

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

approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-9. See 

also Table A-3 below. 

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

significantly reduced activity levels in and associated emissions from the State’s construction 

and goods movement sectors. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. CARB estimates 

economic growth rates will return to normal levels by the 2017-2018 time period. 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions, Appendix B. As a result, projected emission levels from these categories in the 

years up to 2017-2018 are now lower than were originally projected in the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

2007 State Strategy as submitted in November 2007. 

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

validation years (1999/2000), 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. Evaluation and Conclusions

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

time as the draft 2007 Ozone Plan and draft 2007 Statewide Strategy and were subject to public 

hearing as part of final version of the Plan and Strategy. See SJVAPCD Governing Board 

EPA- Region 9 Page 17
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 18

Resolution, 07-04-11a, April 30, 2007, p. 3 and CARB Resolution No. 07-28, p. 3. Revisions to 

the inventory were also made available to the public for comment prior to adoption. See CARB, 

“Notice of Public Meeting to Hear a Report on Staff’s Review of Additional Local Emission 

Controls in The San Joaquin Valley,” November 2, 2007; SJVUAPCD, Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Notice of Public Workshops; 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 

Proposed Revisions for the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 SIP 

Transportation Conformity Budgets,” June 20, 2011. 

Consistent with the 8-hour ozone implementation rule, the SIP uses a 2002 base year 

inventory. When considered together with the inventory documentation cited above, it contains 

all the elements required by EPA’s emissions inventory guidance. The on-road mobile source 

inventories use the latest EPA-approved version of the State’s mobile source emissions model, 

EMFAC2007. 

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

approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 Ozone 

Plan as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions because it 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 SJV 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. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

TABLE A-3 

Revised Emissions Inventory Summary for the 

San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area 

Incorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2011 

(tons per summer day) 

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Stationary & Area Sources 276 263 226 223 229 On-Road Mobile Sources 110 78 66 50 43 Off-Road Mobile Sources 71 67 62 59 57 Total 457 408 354 331 329 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Stationary & Area Sources 101 76 68 57 55 On-Road Mobile Sources 312 229 183 153 115 Off-Road Mobile Sources 152 120 108 98 89 Total 565 425 359 308 259 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B-3. 

EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 20

B. Air Quality Modeling 

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 

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. The attainment 

demonstration must be based on photochemical grid modeling or another analytical method 

determined by the EPA Administrator to be at least as effective. Under the ozone implementation 

rule (40 CFR § 51.908; see 70 FR 71612 at 71624), the attainment demonstration is due within 

three years of the area’s designation as nonattainment and should include technical analyses to 

locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing violations of the 8-hour ozone standard 

within the nonattainment area. 

Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions attainment targets, the combination of 

emissions of ozone precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding the NAAQS, 

and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS. Air 

quality modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data in 

order to evaluate model performance. Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, 

future year changes to the emissions inventory are simulated to determine the relationship 

between emissions reductions and changes in ambient air quality, and to show that the emission 

reductions are sufficient for attainment of the standard. The procedures for modeling ozone as 

part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA’s “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 200718 (“Guidance”). 

2. Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) comprises a field study data collection and 

processing, air quality modeling, and the continuing data analysis of ozone formation in the San 

Joaquin Valley and neighboring areas. CCOS is a multi-million dollar cooperative effort 

involving California cities, State and local and air pollution control agencies, federal agencies, 

industry groups, academics, and contractors. Meteorological and air quality field study data for 

CCOS were collected during the 4 months from June through October 2000 and included five 

several-day intensive monitoring periods. The CCOS ozone episode selected for modeling was 

July 31-August 2, 2000. CARB also modeled July 9-13, 1999, using routinely available 

meteorological and air quality data. CARB modeled these with the Comprehensive Air Quality 

Model with Extensions (CAMx), with meteorological fields from the Mesoscale Model version 5 

(MM5). 

The 2007 Ozone Plan’s air quality modeling is discussed in the Executive Summary 

(p.ES-8) and Chapter 3 “What is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment?” with detailed descriptions 

and results in Appendix F “Photochemical Modeling Support Documents.” An additional Plan 

 18 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 21

component is the CARB Staff Report,19 which includes Appendix C, a Modeling Protocol.20

Finally, CARB provided an Unmonitored Area Analysis in a separate document.21

a. Conceptual Description 

A “conceptual description” is a qualitative way of characterizing the nature of an area’s 

nonattainment or regional haze problem. It can be helpful in identifying potential stakeholders 

and for developing a modeling protocol; it could influence the choice of air quality model, 

modeling domain, grid cell size, priorities for quality assuring and refining emissions estimates, 

and the choice of initial diagnostic tests to identify potentially effective control strategies. In 

general, a conceptual description is useful for helping a state or tribe identify priorities and 

allocate resources in performing a modeled demonstration. 

The Guidance (pp. 126-128 (pdf. 135-137)) lists examples of key components of such a 

description: local vs. regional nonattainment problem; vertical and horizontal extent of high 

concentrations; characteristic spatial patterns; monitored violations at locations subject to 

mesoscale wind patterns (e.g., at a coastline) differing from the general wind flow; recent 

changes in precursor emissions in or near the nonattainment area; trends in design values or other 

air quality indicators that have accompanied emissions changes; spatial pattern to the trends; past 

modeling results; distinctive meteorological measurements coinciding with exceedances. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s conceptual description has components in several places, including 

Chapter 3 (pp. 3-1 – 3-4 (pdf. 3-6)), with similar material in the Staff Report p. 1 (pdf. 13) and in 

greater detail in section 1.3 of the Modeling Protocol (pp. 6-8 (pdf. 12-14)). These Plan portions 

note phenomena conducive to high ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. These 

include the Sierra Nevada, Tehachapi, and South Coast mountain ranges that surround the SJV 

except toward the north, and which restrict air flow and ventilation. The summers are hot with 

little rain fall or cloud cover (Fresno, in the southern SJV, averages 36 days per year with 

temperatures 100°F or hotter), and with frequent inversions that trap pollutants below them. Sea 

breezes (or “marine flows”) may bring pollutants from coastal areas into the SJV from the 

northwest. Recirculation of SJV pollutants can occur via nighttime drainage winds (“slope 

flows”), which return pollutants that were transported up into mountain valleys during the day. 

Recirculation can also occur via the “Fresno eddy”, a counterclockwise flow that returns polluted 

air that would otherwise escape through southern mountain passes. All of these contribute to the 

buildup of ozone and precursors, due to enhanced photochemical formation and to restricted 

dispersion. Also noted are various flow patterns, including transport between the SJV and both 

the Sacramento Valley to the north and the San Francisco Bay Area to the northwest. The 

 19 “Final Draft, Staff Report: Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan”, State of California Air 

Resources Board, May 30, 2007. 

20 “Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing Strategies to Attain the Federal 8-hour Ozone Air 

Quality Standard in Central California”, California Air Resources Board, May 22, 2007, included as Appendix C to 

the CARB Staff Report. The Staff Report also has an Appendix B “Weight-of-Evidence Analysis, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin: Ozone”; however, as discussed in the section below on Weight of Evidence, this is superseded by 

the Appendix F of the Plan itself. 

21 “Unmonitored Area Analysis for Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley”, California Air Resources Board, 

August 12, 2011. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

Protocol’s descriptions of the episodes modeled provide additional information on the conditions 

leading to high ozone. 

EPA believes that the conceptual description of the ozone problem in SJV provided in the 

Plan forms an adequate basis for the development of the modeling protocol and the analysis 

work. 

San Joaquin Valley Topography 

Source: Plan Chapter 3, Figure 3-1, p. 3-1 (pdf. 3) 

b. Modeling Protocol 

A modeling protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all phases 

of the modeling study, such as describing the background and objectives for the study, creating a 

schedule and organizational structure for the study, developing the input data, conducting model 

performance evaluations, interpreting modeling results, describing procedures for using the 

model to demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to attain the NAAQS and/or 

regional haze goals, and producing documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office 

review and approval. The Guidance (p. 134 (pdf. 143)) lists topics to be addressed in the 

modeling protocol: 

1. Overview of Modeling/Analysis Project 

a. Management structure 

b. Technical committees or other communication procedures to be used 

c. Participating organizations 

EPA- Region 9 Page 22
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 

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 

2007 Ozone Plan’s modeling protocol (“Protocol”) is contained in Appendix C of the of 

the Staff Report, as noted above. 

The Protocol covers the most important topics recommended in the Guidance, as 

discussed following subsections. EPA believes the protocol is adequate for developing the 

attainment demonstration. 

c. Air Quality Model Selection 

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

an attainment demonstration. Guidance, p. 136 (pdf. 145). These general criteria are consistent 

with requirements in 40 CFR § 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. The Guidance does not 

recommend a specific model for use in the attainment demonstration. 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 ozone NAAQS. Based on the language in Appendix W, models 

used for these purposes should meet requirements for “alternative models”. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 23
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 24

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. The model should meet several additional prerequisites to be 

used to support an attainment demonstration: 

1. revised in response to a scientific peer review; 

2. appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical basis; 

3. used with a data base which is adequate to support its application; 

4. shown to have performed well in past ozone or PM modeling applications (or if it is the 

first application, then the State should note why it believes the new model is expected to 

perform sufficiently); and 

5. applied consistently with the protocol on methods and procedures. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s Model selection is discussed in the Protocol (p. 20 (pdf. 26)). CARB 

considered the SAQM22, CMAQ23, and CAMx24 models. The SARMAP model was applied in 

1994 to the SJV, but its photochemical mechanism and numerical transport schemes were out of 

date, and costly to update. CMAQ was considered a viable option, though with limited 

application to California. CAMx was selected because it was felt to be faster running, it 

incorporates several probing tools (DDM and PA; see discussion of diagnostic evaluation in Air 

Quality Model Performance subsection below; CMAQ did not include these at that time), and the 

initial investigation showed it to have greater flexibility and ease of set up, as well as better 

performance based on limited testing. 

Any of the three candidate models would have been acceptable. CAMx is explicitly 

mentioned in EPA Guidance (Table 13.1, p. 139 (pdf. 148)), and EPA believes that CAMx is an 

adequate model for the ozone attainment demonstration. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s chemical mechanism selection was the California Statewide Air 

Pollution Research Center (SAPRC). The Plan’s Chapter 3 notes that SAPRC is more complete 

than some other mechanisms such as Carbon Bond IV (CBIV), though it can be slower running. 

2007 Ozone Plan p. 3-6 (pdf. 8). The Protocol noted (p. 31 (pdf. 37)) that SAPRC was the most 

up-to-date mechanism available at the time and has often been applied in California. 

SAPRC is cited multiple times in EPA Guidance Appendix B summarizing model 

performance evaluations (p. 243 (pdf. 242)), and CARB provides several good rationales for 

using it. EPA believes it is an adequate chemical mechanism for use in the attainment 

demonstration modeling. 

 22 SAQM: SARMAP Air Quality Model, where SARMAP stands for SJV/AUSPEX Regional Modeling 

Adaptation Project (an emissions inventory and modeling system), and in turn AUSPEX stands for Atmospheric 

Utility Signature Prediction Experiment (a field study). 

23 CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System, developed by EPA. 

24 CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions, developed by ENVIRON Corporation. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

d. Episode Selection 

The Guidance discusses several criteria for selecting time periods to model (p. 140-147 

(pdf. 149-156)). Experience has shown that evaluation ozone response to control strategies 

should rely on modeling of full synoptic cycles, preferably including ramp-up and ramp-down 

days. It is desirable to include a variety of meteorological conditions (regimes or episode types), 

concentrations near the area’s design value, periods with extensive meteorological and air quality 

databases, and a sufficient number of days so that the modeled attainment test may be applied 

over multiple days. Episode types may be identified using qualitative procedures such as 

reviewing weather maps and wind patterns, or more quantitative procedures, such as 

Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis or a principal component analysis (PCA). 

2007 Ozone Plan’s episode selection is discussed in Chapter 3 and in the Protocol. The 

rich meteorological and air quality database developed during the 2000 CCOS field study was a 

key consideration in selecting episodes to model. CCOS included a network of upper-air and 

surface meteorological monitoring stations in addition to the existing routine networks, with yet 

additional measurements including some from instrumented airplanes made during five intensive 

operational periods (IOPs). The chosen July 31-August 2, 2000 episode coincided with one of 

the IOPs. Meteorological and air quality characteristics of this episode are detailed starting at 

Protocol p. 14 (pdf. 21). The maximum 1-hour ozone concentration was 151 ppb and occurred on 

August 2nd at Edison, southeast of Bakersfield in the southern SJV. The maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration was 106 ppb and occurred on August 2nd at Parlier, southeast of Fresno in the 

south-central SJV. Depending on the day, from 11 to 19 of a total of 25 SJV monitors exceeded 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the episode. Protocol p. 15 (pdf. 21). 

Based on historical meteorological comparisons, July 1999 was another period especially 

conducive to ozone formation. Also, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District believed 

ozone at the time was representative of their concentrations, so that the modeling could be useful 

for the Bay Area as well as for the SJV. The July 11-12, 1999 period was also chosen for 

modeling, even though it had only routine meteorological and air quality data were available for 

it. Chapter 3, p. 3-7 (pdf. 9). The maximum 1-hour ozone concentration in the SJV was 156 ppb 

and occurred on July 8th at Parlier. The maximum 8-hour ozone concentration in the SJV was 

122 ppb and occurred on July 11th at Clovis, northeast of Fresno in the south-central SJV. 

Depending on the day, from 13 to 19 of a total of 20 SJV monitors exceeded the 8-hour ozone 

standard during the episode. (Protocol p. 13 (pdf. 19)) 

Four episodes were originally under consideration (the above two, September 17-21, 

2000, and August 8-15, 2002), but due to time and resource constraints the decision was made to 

focus on the July 2000 and July 1999 episodes, especially after initial modeling of the September 

2000 episode showed poor performance. Chapter 3, p. 3-6, (pdf. 8); Protocol p. 11 (pdf. 17). 

Both of the modeled episodes displayed concentrations near the monitors’ ozone design 

values and had meteorological features typical of high ozone such as slope, eddy, and marine 

flows (noted in the “Conceptual Description” discussion above) and transport patterns 

characteristic of Central California. Chapter 3, p. 3-7 (pdf. 9). 

EPA believes that the chosen episodes provide an adequate basis for the attainment 

demonstration. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 25
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

e. Model Domain and Spatial Resolution 

The model domain is chosen based the nature of the area’s ozone problem and the scale 

of the emissions that affect the nonattainment area and may be subject to control strategies. 

Isolated nonattainment areas that are not affected by regional transport of ozone and its 

precursors may be able to use a relatively small domain. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall 

into this category. 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. Guidance p. 153 

(pdf. 162). 

For the horizontal resolution of the 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. Guidance p. 157 (pdf. 166). 

Vertical resolution chosen will vary depending on the application. There is no correct 

minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment demonstration. Greater resolution 

allows more precise estimation of mixing heights and avoids unrealistic step increases in mixing; 

alignment with the layers in the meteorological model can affect accuracy; the lowest layer 

should generally by no more than 50 meters thick; resolution above the boundary layer can 

generally be coarser. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100 

millibars) 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 Planetary Boundary Layer 

(PBL). Guidance p. 159 (pdf. 168). 

2007 Ozone Plan’s modeling domain is shown in Figure 4.2 of the Protocol (p. 27 (pdf. 

33)), and was chosen with the objective of including all of the Central Valley of California and 

upwind areas. It includes most of California south of Mt. Shasta and north of Los Angeles, and 

extends from Pacific Ocean to the central Mojave Desert and Nevada. The grid horizontal 

resolution used is 4 km; the full grid is 185 x 185 cells. Protocol p. 26 (pdf. 32). The July 2000 

episode used 20 layers, while the July 1999 episode used 16 layers. Protocol p. 27 (pdf. 33) 

Given the topography of the SJV, which has bounding mountains to the east, south, and 

west but which is open to the north and northwest and therefore subject to transport of ozone and 

emissions of ozone precursors from the Sacramento Valley and from the San Francisco Bay 

Area, the model domain encompasses the SJV nonattainment area as well as areas likely to 

contribute to its ozone problem. The boundaries are in rural northern California, the Nevada 

desert, mountains to the south, over the Pacific ocean, all areas with low emissions and so the 

model boundary conditions are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the simulations. The 4 km 

grid horizontal resolution used is considerably more refined than the 12 km Guidance 

EPA- Region 9 Page 26
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

recommendation, and the number of layers is consistent with the range in the Guidance. EPA 

believes the chosen modeling domain is adequate for the attainment demonstration. 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling Domain

Source: Protocol, Figure 4.2, p. 27 (pdf. 33). 

f. Initial and 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 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. We recommend using a “ramp-up” period by beginning a simulation 

prior to a period of interest to diminish the importance of initial conditions; we recommend a 

ramp-up period of at least 2-3 days for ozone. 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. Guidance p. 153 (pdf. 162). 

2007 Ozone Plan’s initial and boundary conditions are discussed starting at Protocol p. 36 

(pdf. 42). Generally defaults from earlier EPA guidance document “Guideline for the Regulatory 

Application of the Urban Airshed Model”, EPA, (EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991) were used as a 

starting point, but these were checked against available ozonesonde data and aircraft 

EPA- Region 9 Page 27
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

measurements. Final decisions on the initial and boundary conditions were made jointly by 

CARB, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, and the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District. Protocol, p. 36 

(pdf. 42); table of values on following page. The boundary conditions were left unchanged for 

simulation of future years, consistent with the EPA Guidance recommendation. A two-day 

“ramp-up” period was used for both episodes, to minimize the impact of uncertain initial 

conditions. Protocol p. 39 (pdf. 45). 

EPA believes that the procedure used to determine boundary and initial conditions is 

adequate for the attainment demonstration. 

g. Meteorological Model Selection and Setup 

Generally a standard meteorological model should be used. The recommended approach 

for generating the meteorological data needed to conduct the attainment demonstration is to 

apply dynamic meteorological models with four dimensional data assimilation (FDDA). These 

models use the fundamental equations of momentum, thermodynamics, and moisture to 

determine the evolution of specific meteorological variables from a given initial state. When 

modeling past events, the use of data assimilation helps to “nudge” solutions so that they do not 

diverge greatly from the actual observed meteorological fields. A major benefit of using dynamic 

meteorological models is that they provide a way of consistently characterizing meteorological 

conditions at times and locations where observations do not exist. Examples of frequently used 

meteorological models are listed below (Guidance p. 160 (pdf. 169)): 

• The Penn State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research 

Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5) 

• The Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) 

• The Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) 

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. Guidance p. 161 (pdf. 170). 

The meteorological model domain must be large enough to contain the photochemical 

modeling 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. One should extend the grid 3 

to 6 cells beyond the domains of each air quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. EPA 

recommends that the dynamic meteorological models use the same grid resolution as desired for 

the air quality model applications. However, poor meteorological model performance or the extra 

costs incurred may not warrant finer resolution; in these specific situations it is recommended 

that the air quality model application use available results from meteorological models on the 

next coarser scale. Guidance p. 161 (pdf. 170). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 28
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 29

Physics options in meteorological models allow users to select how a given feature will 

be simulated. For example, there may be several options for specifying the planetary boundary 

layer scheme or the cumulus parameterization. In many situations, the “optimal” configuration 

cannot be determined without performing an initial series of sensitivity tests which consider 

various combinations of physics options over specific time periods and regions. While these tests 

may not ultimately conclude that any one configuration is clearly superior at all times and in all 

areas, it is recommended that these sensitivity tests be completed, as they should lead to a 

modeling analysis that is best-suited for the domain and period being simulated. Typically, the 

model configuration which yields predictions that provide the best statistical match with 

observed data over the most cases (episodes, regions, etc.) is the one that should be chosen, 

although other more qualitative information can also be considered. Additionally, model 

configurations should be designed to account for the pollutants and time periods that are of most 

interest. Guidance p. 162 (pdf. 171). 

2007 Ozone Plan’s meteorological model selection is discussed starting at Protocol p. 19 

(pdf. 25). CARB considered the NCEP Eta model25, as well as RAMS, MM5, and WRF. The Eta 

model has mainly been used for weather forecasting and not as a research tool, whereas RAMS 

showed some poor characteristics when used for air quality modeling by the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District, and WRF has been little tested for SIP air quality modeling. MM5, 

on the other hand has been used extensively for SIPs, including by CARB, and so was chosen as 

the meteorological model. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s meteorological model domain consists of three nested grids. The 

innermost is just larger than the photochemical domain that it supplies meteorological fields to; it 

has 189 x 189 cells, each 4 km on a side. This is nested within a 12 km resolution grid covering 

the entire State of California, and that in turn is nested within an outer 36 km grid that stretches 

inland to New Mexico and a similar distance west over the Pacific Ocean, and that extends from 

southern Canada to the tip of the Baja California peninsula. Protocol p. 23 (pdf. 29). Boundary 

conditions for the inner two grids are derived from the output of the next larger grid each is 

nested within. The July 2000 episode used 50 vertical layers, and the July 1999 episode used 30 

layers. FDDA was used only for the outer two grids; data from some 300 surface and 25 upper 

air meteorological stations was available for FDDA for the year 2000 CCOS episode. 

 

 25 National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Eta Model (Greek eta, η, a height coordinate based on 

pressure). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

San Joaquin Valley Meteorological Domain

Source: Protocol, Figure 4.1, p. 23. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s physics options are listed starting at Protocol p. 29 (pdf. 35), such as 

Kain-Fritsch cumulus parameterization for the outer grids (2000 episode only). The Protocol also 

states that many combinations of model options were tested before settling on the final choices. 

Some of these options are discussed in the following subsection on meteorological model 

performance. 

EPA believes that the meteorological model choice and setup are consistent with the 

Guidance, and are adequate for use in the attainment demonstration modeling. 

h. Meteorological Model Performance 

EPA recommends that States/Tribes devote appropriate effort to the process of evaluating 

the meteorological inputs to the air quality model as we believe good meteorological model 

performance will yield more confidence in predictions from the air quality model. This 

evaluation should determine if the meteorological model output fields represent a reasonable 

approximation of the actual meteorology that occurred during the modeling period. This can be 

EPA- Region 9 Page 30
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

done via an operational evaluation (i.e., quantitative, statistical, and graphical comparisons). A 

second objective of the evaluation should be to identify and quantify the existing biases and 

errors in the meteorological predictions in order to allow for an downstream assessment of how 

the air quality modeling results are affected by issues associated with the meteorological data. 

This can be done via a more phenomenological assessment, i.e., generally qualitative 

comparisons of observed features vs. their depiction in the model data. Guidance p. 163 (pdf. 

172). 

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 parameterswill 

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 sub-regions and/or months/seasons to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of 

the meteorological strengths and weaknesses. 

Phenomenological Evaluation: Within the conceptual description of a particular 

modeling exercise, it is recommended that the specific meteorological parameters that influence 

air quality be identified and qualitatively ranked in importance. When evaluating meteorological 

models or any other source of meteorological data, the focus of the phenomenological evaluation 

should be on those specific meteorological phenomena that are thought to strongly affect air 

pollution formation and transport within the scope of a specific analysis. It is expected that this 

event-oriented evaluation will need to summarize model performance in terms of statistical 

metrics such as probability of detection and false alarm rate. As an example of a potential 

phenomenological analysis, many regional air quality modeling exercises attempt to assess the 

effects of transport of emissions from one area to a downwind area with an intent to establish 

source-receptor relationships. For these types of modeling analyses, accurate transport wind 

trajectories are needed to properly establish these source-receptor linkages. In this type of model 

application, a useful event-based meteorological evaluation would be to compare model-derived 

trajectories versus those based on ambient data to determine what error distance can be 

associated with the model fields. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s Meteorological Model Performance is discussed starting at Appendix 

F p. F-61 (pdf. 63). Performance statistics are presented in graphical form for various subregions of the SJV. They generally show results averaged over multiple sites within each subregion, and are only a subset of the many site-specific plots that were examined during 

development of the meteorological modeling. There are a) time series plots over the days of each 

episode showing observed and simulated wind speed, wind direction, or temperature, b) scatter 

plots of wind speed gross error against wind speed root mean square error, and c) scatter plots of 

temperature gross error against temperature bias. The scatter plots include lines indicating 

performance benchmarks. The plots are provided for the 1999 episode staring at p. F-67 (pdf. 

69), and for the 2000 episode at p. F-79 (pdf. 81). Finally, maps of horizontal wind vectors are 

included for the 2000 episode with various physics options, starting at p. F-89 (pdf. 91). 

For the 1999 episode, statistics and plots were prepared for three different MM5 runs: 

without FDDA, with FDDA, and with FDDA but excluding data from short (2 meter) 

EPA- Region 9 Page 31
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

meteorological towers. CARB notes that FDDA improved results, but excluding the 2 meter data 

made little difference. The regular FDDA run of MM5 was used for the air quality modeling. 

CARB provided summaries of some of the results: For the Bay Area region, wind speeds were 

generally underpredicted and temperatures showed good agreement with observations, while for 

the Sacramento region wind speed performance was good ,and temperatures tended to be 

underpredicted during the day and overpredicted during the morning. For the Central, Southern, 

and Northern San Joaquin regions, winds tended to be underpredicted some, and again 

temperatures tended to be underpredicted during the day and overpredicted during the morning. 

The simulations were the result of substantial effort by the CARB and the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District, and though not ideal, were deemed acceptable for use in modeling. (see 

results summary staring at p. F-65 (pdf. 67). 

For the 2000 episode, statistics and plots were prepared for six different MM5 runs: four 

produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with alternative 

land-surface model physics options and roughness lengths, and two produced by CARB, with 

and without FDDA. These runs had various choice of soil physics and boundary layer 

parameterizations. After noting the variability of results for different locations, CARB states that 

the NOAA runs with increase roughness length tended to worsen performance for temperature. 

CARB also states that all of the FDDA runs did fairly well for the wind field, but for temperature 

the initial NOAA run performed the best. (Although for the Angiola temperature time series 

included in the documentation, the CARB runs look better. Figure 1-12(a), p. F-87 (pdf. 89). The 

initial NOAA run of MM5 was used for the air quality modeling. (see results summary staring at 

p. F-77 (pdf. 79). 

CARB states that, in addition to these operational evaluation analyses, qualitative 

performance analyses of the meteorological model were undertaken. These included comparison 

of modeled and observed wind patterns, to ensure that the model is reproduce phenomena known 

to occur in the SJV, such as the sea breeze, the Fresno eddy, and slope and drainage flows. They 

also included comparison of wind profiler observations with the simulated wind field at the 

profiler location, and of upper air observations with simulated mixing layer height. p. F-64 (pdf. 

66). 

The operational evaluation undertaken by CARB is consistent with the recommendations 

in the EPA Guidance, in terms of meteorological parameters examined, statistics computed, and 

the consideration of differing sub-regions within the model domain. The CARB qualitative 

analyses mentioned above are also consistent with the EPA Guidance recommendations for a 

phenomenological evaluation. EPA believes that the meteorological model evaluation and the 

model performance are adequate to support the air quality model for the attainment 

demonstration. 

i. Emission Inventory 

Air quality modeling requires emission inputs for base case, baseline, and future 

modeling years. Preparation of emissions data for air quality models for the base and future years 

requires several steps. First, States and Tribes need to compile base-year inventories for their 

modeling region (e.g., the States and Tribes in the modeling grid). For ozone model applications, 

emission inventories should include a complete accounting of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC 

(speciated), NOx, and CO. Second, modelers must collect “ancillary data” associated with the 

EPA- Region 9 Page 32
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

inventories, which prescribes the spatial, temporal, and chemical speciation information about 

the emission inventory. Third, modelers use the ancillary data for “emissions modeling”. 

Emissions models spatially, temporally, chemically, and vertically allocate emission inventories 

to the resolution needed by air quality models. Fourth, modelers must collect data on growth 

rates and existing control programs for use in projecting the base year emission inventories to the 

future year, and then use an emissions model to prepare that future year inventory data for input 

to the air quality model. Fifth, emissions inventories that reflect the emissions reductions needed 

for attainment will have to be prepared for air quality modeling. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s emissions inputs are discussed starting at Protocol p. 40 (pdf. 46) 

start. The Protocol provides description of the modeling inventory preparation process. The 

topics covered include: quality assurance checks, the effects of growth and of the application of 

control measures, temporally resolved emissions for some larger point sources, temporal 

allocation of annual emissions to account for monthly and weekly variations, diurnal profiles of 

emissions, temperature dependence of emissions from some source types, California-specific 

vehicle emissions from the EMFAC model, a summary of some of the algorithms and inputs to 

the BEIGIS biogenic emissions model, spatial allocation of the various source category 

emissions into model grid squares (via known coordinates for point sources and for links of the 

roadway network, land use and demographic spatial surrogates for area source categories), 

speciation of VOC emissions into particular chemical species needed by the photochemical 

model’s chemical mechanism, and speciation of NOx into NO and NO2. 

The Protocol’s description of the emissions input process is fairly comprehensive, and 

covers all the key topics in the EPA Guidance. EPA believes that the emission inventory 

prepared for input to the air quality model is adequate to support the attainment demonstration. 

j. Air Quality Model Performance 

Model performance can be assessed in terms of its ability to replicate observed 

concentrations of ozone and its precursors (operational evaluation), and in terms of the model’s 

ability to correctly portray physical processes, and thus its ability to simulate the effect of 

emission changes (diagnostic evaluation). 

 For the operational evaluation, useful statistical metrics include mean normalized bias 

(MNB), mean normalized gross error (MNGE), peak bias (APPB), and peak error (APPE). The 

defining formulas are at Guidance p. 198 (pdf. 207). Other statistics such as mean bias, mean 

error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients, etc. should also be calculated to the extent 

that they provide meaningful information. Graphical analyses can also be useful, such as time 

series and scatter plots of modeled vs. observed concentrations, spatial plots or animations of 

modeled ozone in each grid cell with observed values noted for monitor locations. EPA no 

longer recommends specific performance goals for statistical metrics, and cautions against their 

use as “pass/fail” tests. Guidance p. 216 (pdf. 225). Instead, the results of various tests and 

analyses should be weighed qualitatively to assess the adequacy of model performance. 

Appendix B to the Guidance lists sets of performance goals and results that have been used in 

recent model evaluations. 

For the diagnostic evaluation, the Guidance discusses a number of approaches, 

including observational models, probing tools, receptor models, retrospective analyses, and 

sensitivity analyses. Guidance p. 208 (pdf. 217). Observational models include the use of 

EPA- Region 9 Page 33
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 34

indicator species ratios that give clues about which processes are dominant, and whether VOC or 

NOx is the limiting precursor for ozone formation. Probing tools include source apportionment 

tools that track the chemical products of emissions from specified source groups, the direct 

decoupled method (DDM) that reports model sensitivity to input changes without rerunning the 

model, and process analysis (PA) that tracks the contributions of particular physical and 

chemical process to model results. A retrospective analysis compares modeled trends to observed 

trends given known emission changes over a historical period. Sensitivity analyses explore the 

model response to changes in important inputs such as total emissions, alternative boundary 

conditions, alternative meteorological models or model setups, alternative vertical layer schemes, 

and finer or coarse grid resolution. All of these methods can help to determine whether the model 

responds in a physically reasonable way to change, and to identify inputs that may need further 

refinement. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s air quality model performance is discussed briefly in 2007 Ozone 

Plan Chapter 3, and in detail in Appendix F26. Chapter 3 states: “In general, modeling of these 

episodes met performance standards, but some concentrations were under-predicted at sites in 

the SJVAB.” p. 3-7 (pdf. 9). Appendix F lists statistics that were calculated to evaluate model 

performance for 1-hour ozone and 8-hour ozone (Table 2-1, p. F-99 (pdf. 101)); these are the 

substantially same as the statistics recommended in the EPA Guidance. The exception is that 

instead of the peak bias and peak error, a comparable “unpaired peak ratio” (“UPR”) statistic is 

listed; here “unpaired” means that concentrations are not paired hour by hour, but rather the peak 

concentration for the day is considered, regardless of the particular hour. The abbreviations used 

in the Plan also differ from EPA’s: EPA’s mean normalized bias MNB is called just NB, and 

mean normalized gross error MNGE is called just GE. The evaluation sets a benchmark 

performance goals for NB of being with 15 percent, and for GE of being within 30 percent; these 

were carried forward from the earlier EPA guidance on the 1-hour standard. Appendix F, p. F-95 

(pdf. 97) and p. F-97 (pdf. 99). Since the SJV modeling domain has complex flow and 

topography, these statistics were calculated for 15 sub-regions, to assess performance throughout 

the air basin instead of lumping the disparate locations together in a single metric, which could 

obscure local performance problems. An additional criterion of a concentration of at least 85 ppb 

within 15 km of the monitor (p. F-96 (pdf. 98)) is imposed for choosing which days to include in 

the calculation of relative response factors (RRFs); see the following subsection on the Modeled 

Attainment Test. 

The numeric values for the statistics are not presented in the Plan, but they are portrayed 

graphically. In addition to time series plots of monitored and modeled CO, ozone, NO, and NO2, 

Appendix F has scatter plots of normalized bias (NB) against the UPR. These are presented for 

both 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, for each sub-region, and for each of the two modeled episodes. 

The 1999 episode performance is summarized on p. F-102 (pdf. 104), followed by a table 

showing whether each day meets the RRF inclusion criteria for each sub-region (tables on p. F103 (pdf. 105)). The time series plots start at p. F-104 pdf.106, and the scatter plots start at p. F109 (pdf. 111)). For the Central and Southern SJV regions, ozone is stated to be underpredicted 

during the day and overpredicted during the morning, while for the Northern SJV region ozone is 

 26 The Modeling Protocol has essentially the same discussion as in Appendix F, starting at p.87 (pdf.93). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 35

stated to be predicted well. Performance for NO2 is stated to vary over the three regions, and for 

NO to be somewhat underpredicted. 

The 2000 episode performance is summarized starting at p. F-113 (pdf.115), followed by 

a table showing whether each day meets the RRF inclusion criteria for each sub-region (tables on 

p. F-116 (pdf.118)). The time series plots start at p. F-117 (pdf.119), and the scatter plots start at 

p. F-122 (pdf. 124). For the Central and Southern SJV regions, ozone is stated to be in excellent 

agreement with observations, while for the Northern SJV region ozone on some days is 

overpredicted. Performance for NO2 is stated to vary over the three regions, and for NO to be 

good. 

Examination of the 2000 episode time series plots showed that there tends to be 

overprediction in the San Francisco Bay Area and Northern SJV regions, slight overprediction in 

the Sacramento and Central SJV regions. For the Southern SJV region, which had the highest 

ozone concentrations, there is some underprediction on the highest days, and some 

overprediction on other days, though the disagreement was not large. Overall performance 

appears to be good. 

Model Performance for Southern SJV Sub-Region, July 2000 Episode

Source: Plan Appendix F, Figure 2-12, p. F-120 (pdf. 122). 

In addition to these statistics and graphics that are part of an operational evaluation, the Plan 

lists sensitivity tests that were undertaken. Table 2-3, p. F-100 (pdf. 102). These included typical 

diagnostic tests such as zeroing out biogenic, anthropogenic, or mobile emissions; changing 

ozone boundary conditions; changing NOx initial conditions; and doubling biogenic emissions. 

In the “Results for Model Sensitivity Tests,”27 the Plan provides table of the ozone changes at 

each monitoring station, and color-coded maps showing the results over the entire modeling 

domain, and some brief explanatory text. In each case, the model responded in a reasonable way 

to the changes; for example there were substantial ozone decreases when biogenic emissions 

were removed, and modest increases when the ozone boundary condition is increased. In a 

number of cases with reduced or removed emissions, there were ozone increases immediately 

downwind of a few urban areas; this is explained by noting that the removed NOx emissions 

 27 The results are listed in the Model Performance Evaluation table of contents at p.F-59 pdf.61, but do not 

appear in some versions Appendix F. CARB provided the results in “Results for Model Sensitivity Tests”, file “SJV 

OZONE SENSITIVITY TEST RESULTS, CHAPTER 4 -2011-08-30.pdf” 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 36

were no longer titrating ozone.28 The effect of ozone boundary condition changes was mainly at 

the outer domain boundaries, which provides assurance that the model results are not overly 

driven by the boundary conditions, which can be relatively uncertain. These tests show that the 

model is performing in a physically reasonable way. 

An extensive set of performance statistics and sensitivity analyses was undertaken to assess 

model performance, consistent with the Guidance, and the model was shown to perform well. 

EPA believes the model performance is adequate for conducting the attainment demonstration. 

k. 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 concentrations are less than 

the NAAQS, then this element of the attainment test is satisfied. 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, RRFs. Future ozone concentrations are estimated at existing 

monitoring sites by multiplying the modeled relative response factor at locations “near” each 

monitor by the observation-based “baseline” design value for the monitor. The resulting 

predicted “future concentrations” are compared to NAAQS. Guidance p. 15 (pdf. 24). 

Future concentration 

= (baseline design value) * (model future prediction) / (model baseline prediction) 

= (baseline design value) * RRF

After analyzing how RRFs vary with the number of days modeled and with the choice of 

minimum ozone threshold, EPA recommended several criteria for day selection to ensure that the 

RRFs are robust in the face of natural variability (Guidance p. 146 (pdf. 155)): 

• If there are 10 or more days with daily maximum 8-hour average baseline modeled 

ozone > 85 ppb, then use an 85 ppb threshold. 

• If there are less than 10 days with daily maximum 8-hour average baseline modeled 

ozone > 85 ppb, then reduce the threshold down to as low as 70 ppb until there are 10 

days in the mean RRF calculation. 

• If there are less than 10 days with daily maximum 8-hour average modeled ozone > 

70 ppb, then use all days > 70 ppb. 

• Don’t calculate an RRF for sites with less than 5 days > 70 ppb. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s NAAQS attainment test is discussed in two places in Appendix F29, 

starting at p. F-3 (pdf. 5), with a repetition at p. F-96 (pdf. 98) of the RRF inclusion criterion of a 

 28 NOx is mostly emitted as NO, which "titrates" ozone (O3) to oxygen (O2), so its first effect is to decrease 

ozone, even though the ultimate effect is to increase ozone further downwind. Thus, lower NOx means less ozone 

removal and higher ozone, at least nearby. 

29 The Modeling Protocol has essentially the same discussion as in Appendix F, starting at p. 93 (pdf. 99). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

concentration of at least 85 ppb within 15 km of the monitor. Tables on p. F-128 (pdf. 130) give 

the number of days meeting the NB and GE performance goals discussed in the previous 

subsection, and so available for the RRF calculations for each sub-region for the 1999 and the 

2000 episodes. The Plan provides an RRF table and ozone isopleth diagrams (“carrying capacity 

diagrams”) for each monitoring site, for the two future years of 2020 and 2023. Each table has a 

column for every day modeled in the two episodes, and has entries for observed and modeled 

peak concentration, modeled peak within 15 km, design value, average of the modeled peak over 

days eligible for inclusion in the RRF calculation, and the future year concentration within 15 

km. The ratio of the latter two is the RRF itself, which is not explicitly shown. Below each table 

are four ozone isopleth diagrams, which show ozone concentrations for various combinations of 

NOx and VOC emission reductions (0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% each); note that the reductions are 

relative to future year emissions without new controls beyond the baseline. The isopleths show 

the ozone result with and without the application of the RRFs, and without and without an 

“offset” of 40 ppb (which is assumed to be a background value not affected by emission 

reductions), for a total of four combinations. 

The attainment test was based on the RRF incorporating the offset. Protocol, p. 98 (pdf. 

104). The reductions needed by the plan overall were driven by results at the Arvin monitor in 

the southern SJV. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3-8. This site has a base year design value of 114 ppb, 

and according to the isopleth diagram (or rather interpolation based on the ozone concentrations 

and the percent NOx reduction it corresponds to, assuming zero percent benefit from additional 

VOC control), a 47 percent emission reduction is required for attainment (Chapter 3, p. 3-8, (pdf. 

10); Appendix F, p. F-38, (pdf. 40); isopleth diagram with RRFs and with 40 ppb offset). This 

translates into a 75 percent reduction from base year NOx emission levels of 642 tpd, or an 

attainment target of 160 tpd. Chapter 3, p. 3-8, (pdf. 10); also Plan Executive Summary p. ES-8. 

With respect to the isopleths or “carrying capacity diagrams”, Chapter 3 states that “it is 

assumed that emission patterns, VOC reactivity and other modeling parameters hold constant 

over time. This assumption implies that controls are applied evenly throughout the Valley... if 

transportation patterns in 2008 are extremely different ... it might not be reasonable to assume 

that ... same ozone concentration at the same site... When considering all uncertainties in 

modeling, however, this variation is considered minor.” 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3-13. In other 

words, when total emissions no more than the levels indicated on the carrying capacity diagram, 

it is assumed that the NAAQS is attained. This is assumed even though the model response 

would be slightly different if it directly simulated the control measures themselves, since their 

effects are not necessarily evenly applied to all locations in the SJV. 

The Plan applies the modeled attainment test in accordance with EPA Guidance, except 

that the Plan’s version is more conservative, since it assumes a constant 40 ppb background. 

Although the 2023 effect of new control measures was not directly modeled, as the Plan states, 

given all the uncertainties the carrying capacity approach used is acceptable. EPA believes that 

the Plan’s modeled attainment test was correctly applied, and that the modeling demonstrates 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 

An unmonitored area analysis (UAA) uses a combination of model output and ambient 

data to identify areas without a monitor that might exceed the NAAQS in the base year or after 

EPA- Region 9 Page 37
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

application of the control strategy. This is necessary because the recommended modeled 

attainment test based on relative reduction factors may be applied only at monitor locations, and 

is particularly necessary 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). The analysis should include, at a minimum, all nonattainment counties and 

counties surrounding the nonattainment area (located within the State). In order to examine 

unmonitored areas in all portions of the domain, it is recommended to use interpolated spatial 

fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. Guidance p. 29 (pdf. 38). EPA’s 

MATS software can perform this calculation, but other methods may also be used. Due to the 

location of monitored data, the results of the analysis are less certain than for the modeled 

attainment test and should be handled on a case by case basis, possibly by additional analyses or 

tracking. Guidance pp. 32 and 33 (pdf. 41 and 42), respectively. 

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; and 

4. Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAAQS in the future. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s unmonitored area analysis is discussed in CARB’s Unmonitored Area 

Analysis document cited above. The 2007 Ozone Plan original submittal section F.4 entitled 

“Analysis of Model-Simulated, Unmonitored Peaks” contained only a placeholder sentence (p. 

F-14 (pdf. 16)), but CARB later submitted its Unmonitored Area Analysis that uses EPA’s 

MATS software. This analysis followed the four steps laid out in the Guidance, and provided 

maps at each step, colored according to the resulting ozone level (or the RRF, for step 3). Around 

each monitor the maps show include a rectangle containing a 7 x 7 set of 4 km grid cells, 

portraying the area that monitor is presumed to represent in the EPA Guidance modeled 

attainment test. CARB notes that the monitors show adequate coverage of the regions with 

elevated ozone concentrations, with the possible exception of a single (orange-colored) grid cell 

in the southern SJV that is at the edge of several monitor rectangles. CARB suggests that a 

source category with emissions that were overestimated at the time of the modeling, unspecified 

natural gas combustion, may be responsible for the higher value in that cell. Finally, CARB notes 

that the recent relocation of the Arvin monitor toward the west will better cover this area. 

Additional details of the CARB analysis of this grid cell would have been desirable. 

However, given the uncertainty of the analysis and the lack of a strong gradient in the step 4 

fields, there do not appear to be any unmonitored NAAQS violations. The relocation of the 

Arvin monitor may be able to provide additional assurance that the potentially high ozone in this 

grid cell is an artifact of the modeling. EPA believes that the unmonitored area analysis was 

properly performed, and that its results support the attainment demonstration. 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 38
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

Unmonitored Area Ozone Estimate 

from Gradient-Adjusted Fields

 Source: Unmonitored Area Analysis, Figure 4, p. 7 

m. Weight of Evidence Determination 

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 

EPA- Region 9 Page 39
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 40

evidence produced by corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that 

implied by the modeled attainment test results. Guidance p. 17 (pdf. 26). Supplemental analyses

could include additional modeling using alternative models and inputs, modeling apportionment 

and process analysis tools, alternative metrics (such as change in the number of grid cells above 

the NAAQS), trends in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, receptor modeling, and indicator

species approaches. 

TABLE B-1 

Guidelines For Weight of Evidence Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment Test 

Supplemental Analyses 

Ozone Annual PM2.5 24-Hour PM2.5

Future Design Value Future Design Value Future Design Value Basic supplemental analyses 

m < 82 ppb, all 

monitor sites 

< 14.5 μg/m3

, all 

monitor sites 

< 62 μg/m3, all 

monitor sites 

should be completed to confir

the outcome of the modeled 

attainment test 

Future Design Value Future Design Value Future Design Value e 

alyses 

82 - 87 ppb, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells 

14.5-15.5 μg/m3

, at 

one or more 

sites/grid cells 

62-67 μg/m3

, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells 

A weight of evidence 

demonstration should b

conducted to determine if 

aggregate supplemental an

support the modeled attainment 

test 

Future Design Value Future Design Value Future Design Value alitative results are less 

he > 88 ppb, at one or 

more sites/grid cells 

> 15.5 μg/m3

, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells 

> 68 μg/m3

, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells 

More qu

likely to support a conclusion 

differing from the outcome of t

modeled attainment test. 

2007 Ozone Plan’s weight of evidence determination is discussed in Plan Appendix F 

and als

the different 

B 

ght Of Evidence 

Elemen

ed 

ss 

zone design value and maximum concentration among the worst 

30 days

o the CARB Staff Report’s Appendix B. These documents largely cover the same 

material, except that CARB Staff Report, Appendix B has an additional heading 

“Characterization and Frequency of Episodic Conditions” that provides detail on 

meteorological conditions associated with ozone exceedances (CARB Staff Report, Appendix 

p. 9 (pdf. 11)), and its coverage of “Precursor Trends” is somewhat different (Appendix B, p. 

17ff (pdf. 19ff). Since Appendix F is part of the Plan per se, and also appears to have been 

written later, EPA considers it to be the Plan’s weight of evidence analysis. 

The Plan’s Appendix F concludes with “Corroborative Analyses/Wei

ts” (p. F-138 (pdf. 140)), which contains supplemental analyses in support of the 

attainment demonstration. These include ozone air quality trends, meteorologically adjust

ozone trends, and precursor emission and ambient trends, all of which show continued progre

toward NAAQS attainment. 

The trends for 8-hour o

 each year show just a small amount of progress over the 1990-2005 period. The 8-hour 

ozone design value (which is the running 3-year average of the 4th highest daily ozone value for 

each year) shows slightly more progress, and the decline in the number of 8-hour exceedance 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 41

days is substantial. Appendix F, Figure 5-1, p. F-138 (pdf. 140). There has also been substantia

progress in most of the sub-regions within the SJV, though the Sequoia area has worsened, and 

progress at the Arvin site has been less than at other locations. Appendix F, Figure 5-4, p. F-143

(pdf. 144). 

Whe

l 

n the average of the Top 10, Top 20, and Top 30 concentrations for each year is 

adjuste

, 

Meteorology-Adjusted Ozone Trends for 

Source: Plan Appendix F, Figure 5-7, p. F-148 (pdf. 150). 

NOx and VOC (comparable to “ROG” in the Plan documents) emissions have had a 

steady 1, 

ochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) measurements of ambient 

concen

 the 

on prediction of 

ozone N

3. Conclusions

d to remove for the effect of unfavorable meteorology via a regression procedure, the 

downward trends appear stronger, though there are high values in 2003 and 2004. Appendix F

Figure 5-7, p. F-148 (pdf. 150). 

Mean of Top 10, 20, and 30 Days 

downward trend between 1990 and 2005. Appendix F, Figures 5-11 and 5-12, p. F-15

(pdf. 153). 

Phot

trations of NOx and VOC, and also the reactivity of the VOC mix, have also showed 

steady declines. Progress was fairly flat during 1999-2002, and NOx progress is less than for

VOC and reactivity metrics. Appendix F, Figure 5-13, p. F-152 (pdf. 154). 

EPA believes that these analyses support the attainment demonstrati

AAQS attainment, and constitute an adequate weight of evidence determination. 

 

ent demonstration was made available to the public for 

comment at the same time as the draft 2007 Ozone Plan, and were subject to public hearing as 

part of final version of the Plan. 

The modeling used for the attainm
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 42

The air quality modeling documentation in Chapter 3 and Appendix F of the Plan and 

CARB’s Unmonitored Area Analysis, contains all the elements required by EPA’s modeling 

guidance. The modeling is based on the best and most current information available at the time 

the plan was developed. Based on our evaluation discussed above, we propose to find that the 

modeling analysis used for the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan meet the CAA

section 182(c)(2)(A) requirement that the plan provide for attainment of the NAAQS, and that 

the modeling in the 2007 Ozone Plan provides an adequate basis for the Plan’s reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 43

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures 

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 a SIP revision demonstrating that it has 

adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to 

meet any RFP requirements. 40 CFR § 51.912(d). 

EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in the 

General Preamble at 1356030 and in 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).31 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 or more years.32

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, onroad and non-road emission source categories that meets the following five criteria. These 

criteria are that 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, 

 30 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. 

31 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, 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,” December 14, 2000. 

32 For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) 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). 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 by CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 27 months after designation for the 8-hour ozone 

standard (September 15, 2006 for areas designated in April 2004) and to implement the required RACT measures no 

later than 30 months after that submittal deadline. See 40 CFR § 51.912(a). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 44

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. 70 FR 71612, 71659. 

2. RACM Analysis in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The 2007 Ozone Plan and the 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 SJV.33 These planning efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of rules and 

programs that address the great majority of emissions sources in the Valley. 

For the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB, and the 

local agencies (through the SJV’s eight metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)) each 

undertook a process to identify and evaluate potential reasonably available control measures that 

could contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. We describe 

each agency’s efforts below. 

a. District RACM Analysis 

The District’s RACM analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendix I 

of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The analysis focused on controls for the categories of stationary and 

area sources under the District’s direct jurisdiction.34

To identify potential RACM, the District reviewed potential measures from a number of 

sources including but not limited to: 

• control strategies and measures from other districts and agencies, including the South 

Coast AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, Ventura County 

APCD, Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments, Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, and Fresno Council of Governments; 

• workshops held by the South Coast AQMD and CARB; 

 33 These plans include the 2003 PM10 Plan (approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)), the 2004 Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), and 2008 PM2.5 (proposed for partial approval on 

November 30, 2010 (74 FR 74518) and reproposed for approval on July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41338). 

34 As required by CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40 CFR § 51.912(a), the District adopted a RACT SIP on 

August 17, 2006 which was submitted on January 31, 2007. This RACT SIP was based on a major source threshold 

of 25 tpy. As discussed previously, the District requested and EPA granted a reclassification of the SJV to extreme 

for the 8-hour ozone standard. The major source threshold in extreme areas is 10 tpd. See CAA section 182(e). On 

April 16, 2009, the District adopted a revised RACT SIP intended to both address the lowered threshold and to 

respond to EPA and public comments on its RACT rules. The 2009 RACT SIP was submitted on June 18, 2009. 

On August 31, 2011, EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove that 2009 SJV RACT SIP. 

See 76 FR 55842 (September 9, 2011). We discuss the revised RACT SIP here only to extent that it informs our 

evaluation of whether SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(1). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

• existing District controls; 

• further study measures in the SJV Extreme [1-hour] Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

Plan; 

• measures suggested by the public in various forums including town hall meetings, 

workshops on the 2008 Ozone Plan and during public comment periods on the Plan; and 

• recommendations from CARB’s 2003 audit of the District. 

2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 6-2 to 6-3. 

The identified potential measures, as well as existing District measures, are described by 

emissions inventory category in Appendix I of the Plan. 

From this set of potential controls, the District developed a Stationary Source Regulatory 

Implementation Schedule (2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008) which gives 

the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of the selected RACM measures. See 

Table C-1 below. The schedule was developed based on a variety of factors, including: 

• technological feasibility and practicality of emission controls; 

• magnitude of emissions from the source category and likely emissions reductions; 

• cost, financial impacts, and potential for socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, 

profitability); 

• District authority and enforceability of emissions reductions; 

• rate and timing of emissions reductions; 

• public acceptability, including interests and concerns of community members; 

• pollutants reduced – NOx, or VOC or both; 

• any potential adverse environmental impacts; and. 

• potential for disparate environmental impacts (environmental justice). 

2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6-3. 

The District also identified a number of source categories for which feasibility studies to 

refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls would be done. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 

6-2. Updated information on the status of many of these feasibility studies can be found in the 

2010 Ozone MCR, section 3.2 and the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.2. 

The Plan also includes descriptions of the District’s incentive programs (which target onand off-road engine replacement with an emphasis on diesel engines), its innovative strategies 

program including its Fast Track emissions reductions measures, and public education efforts. 

See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8, 2010 Ozone MCR, Sections 5 and 6, and SJV 2011 

PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.3 and 2.4 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 45
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule 

Number 

Adoption 

Date 

Earliest 

Compliance 

Date 

Reductions 

Start 

S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids 4565 1st Q - 2007 2008 2008 

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 4103 

2nd Q -2007 2007 2007 

2nd Q – 2010 2010 2010 

S-SOL-11 Solvents 4661/4662/4663 3rd Q – 2007 2010 2010 

S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 3rd Q – 2007 2010 2012 

S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination 4651 3rd Q – 2007 2008 NA 

S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam 4682 3rd Q – 2007 2010 2011 

S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & 

Transfer 

4623 

4624 

4th Q – 2007 2009 2009 

S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage — 3rd Q – 2007 2010 2010 

S-COM-1 Large Boilers 

4306 

4320 

3rd Q – 2008 2011 2011 

S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3rd Q – 2008 2020 2012 from 

incentives 

S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3rd Q – 2008 Varies 2008 

S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts 4607 4th Q – 2008 2011 2011 

S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1st Q – 2009 Attrition 2011 

S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste 4566 4th Q - 2010 2012 2012 

S-IND-21 Flares 4311 2nd Q – 2009 NA NA 

S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging 4695 3rd Q – 2009 NA NA 

S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings 4601 4th Q – 2009 2012 2012 

S-AGR-2 CAFO 4570 2nd Q – 2010 2011 2011 

S-SOL-6 Adhesives 4653 3rd Q – 2010 2012 2012 

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 46
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 47

b. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM/RACT analysis was conducted by the SJV’s eight MPOs 

and is summarized in Chapter 9 and described in detail in Appendix C of the 2007 Ozone Plan.35

This analysis, which focused on potential NOx emissions reductions from transportation control 

measures (TCM). TCM are generally measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road 

motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled, vehicle trips, and/or traffic 

congestion. 

The SJV MPOs developed a local RACM strategy which consisted of two parts: (1) 

evaluation of potential RACM for advancing the 8-hour ozone standard attainment date and (2) 

the adoption of a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) policy to fund cost-effective 

emissions reductions projects. 

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the MPOs evaluated potential TCM through a multi-step 

process: 

Step 1. Develop a list of potential reasonably available local control measures. 

To identify potential measures, the MPOs reviewed measures from previous San Joaquin 

Valley RACM processes, more recent guidance materials, applicable SIPs, and suggestion made 

by the public during the District’s Town Hall meetings. The resulting list of approximately 20 

new measures not previously analyzed for the SJV was organized by CAA Section 108(f) 

transportation control measure categories. 

Step 2. Develop emission reduction estimates. 

Emissions reductions estimates were developed for the CAA section 108(f) categories to 

assess the list of potential RACM identified in Step 1. The methodology used to estimated 

reductions is described in Appendix C of the 2007 Ozone Plan. In developing these estimates, 

the MPOs used assumptions that maximized the potential VMT and NOx reduction from each 

measure. Examples of these assumptions are given on p. 9-5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The total 

maximum reduction in NOx emissions that could be achieved from implementing all the TCM 

were estimated to be approximately 7 tpd in 2020 and 5 tpd in 2023. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9-6. 

Step 3. Compare the potential emission reductions against the reductions needed to advance 

attainment by one year. 

The MPOs used three methods to estimate the reductions needed to advance attainment 

by one year. The lowest estimate came from determining the NOx reductions required to achieve 

a 1 ppb decrease in ozone (i.e., the smallest change that is measurable at design monitors). The 

isopleths for the Arvin and Fresno-Sierra Sky Park monitors show that an 8.8 tpd reduction in 

NOx will be required to achieve a 1 ppb decrease in ozone concentrations at those monitoring.36

 35 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin 

Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association of Governments, 

the Madera County Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County 

Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and the Kern Council of Governments.

36 A 1 ppb decrease in ambient ozone levels, given the projected ozone level in 2023 with existing 

measures, would not necessarily be sufficient to advance attainment by one year. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 48

Given that the maximum feasible NOx reductions from potential local RACM were 5 tpd 

in 2023, the MPOs concluded that combination of local RACM would not advance attainment by 

a full year and therefore no further efforts to adopt local commitments for the Plan were 

necessary. 

Based on the above analysis, the MPOs determined that there were no additional local 

RACM, beyond those measures already adopted, that would advance attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV and thus no additional adoption of measures was necessary. 2007 

Ozone Plan, p. 9-7. 

The eight MPOs did commit to adopt a CMAQ policy that includes developing a 

standardized process across the Valley for distributing, beginning in FY2011, 20 percent of the 

CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. This policy, which as now 

been adopted, focuses on achieving the most cost-effective emissions reductions, while 

maintaining flexibility to meet local needs. Id. 

c. State’s RACM Analysis 

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. California has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards for 

most categories of on- and off-road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances only 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. This process is described in the 2007 Ozone Plan, 

p. 9-10. 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.37 CARB made available a draft of the 2007 State Strategy for public review in 

April 2007 and then 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 develop 15 new defined measures 

to address California’s ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment problem. 2007 State Strategy, p. 65 and 

CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures focused on cleaning up the in-use 

(“legacy”) fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a number of 

engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle fuels and consumer products. Many, 

if not most of these measures, were being proposed and adopted for the first time anywhere in 

the nation. They built on CARB’s already extensive existing program to address emissions of 

NOx, and VOC from all types of mobile sources, through both regulations and incentive 

programs, as well as from fuels and consumer products. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38. Table C2 lists these measures and their expected action and implementation schedule as initially adopted 

in 2007 State Strategy as adopting in September 2007. These measures also include one 

additional measure each from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California 

 37 More information on this public process including presentations from the workshops and symposium 

that proceeded adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/ 

2007sip.htm. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 49

Department of Pesticide Regulation. Since 2007, CARB has updated its expected action and 

implementation dates for a number of its measures. Table C-3 provides the list of these measures 

as updated in the 2011 Progress Report and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE C-2 

2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration 

September 2007 

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Expected Implementation 

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007-2008 By 2010 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 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 

Line-Haul 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 

Pesticides Regulation (DPR) 2008 2008 

Source: CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 8. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 50
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE C-3 

Updated 2007 State Strategy: Ozone SIP Measures 

July 2011 

Defined State Measure Action 

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007-2009 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007 

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2007, 2008, 2010 

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007-2008 

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2008-2011 

Engines: 2008 

Port Truck Modernization 2007, 2008, 2010 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2008 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007, 2010 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2007, 2010 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment 2013 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats Expected 2013 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions 

Standards Expected 2013 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage 

Tanks 2008 

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards 2009 

Expected 2013 

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2008, 2008, 2011 

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 2008, 2009 

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Table 1 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A-7. 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 51
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 52

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

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 technically and 

economically feasible for implementation in the SJV. The process and the criteria the District 

used to select certain measures and reject others are consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. We 

also describe above the measure evaluation processes undertaken by the SJV MPOs and the 

State. Their processes are also consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. See General Preamble at 

13560 and Seitz memo. 

Because the SJV is designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard, CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require the implementation of RACT for all 

major sources of VOC or NOx and on all VOC sources covered by an EPA-issued CTG. 

California submitted the District’s revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP (adopted April 16, 2009) on 

June 18, 2009. We have proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove this RACT SIP 

based on our proposed determination that the RACT SIP does not adequately demonstrate 

compliance with section 182 RACT requirements for ten source categories. See Partial Approval 

and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 

Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone; Proposed rule, 76 FR 55842 (September 

9, 2011). See Table C-4 for a list of rules that covering these 10 categories. Nine of these ten 

source categories emit VOC emissions, only one, solid fuel-fired boilers, emits NOx. 

Attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV depends on significant 

reductions in NOx from new technologies. Air quality modeling shows that no level of VOC 

reductions will bring about attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV absent these NOx

reductions and no reasonable level of VOC reductions will expedite attainment absent significant 

NOx reductions.38 See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 3. 

Under EPA’s longstanding policy, a SIP meets the RACM requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(1) if it includes all reasonably available measures that individually or in combination with 

other such measures can advance attainment of the relevant standard by one year or more, which 

in this case is from 2023 to 2022.39 Thus to determine if the SJV Ozone SIP meets this statutory 

requirement, we must evaluate whether implementation of the missing RACT-level controls on 

the ten categories will expedite attainment. 

Because attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard depends on NOx reductions and 

VOC reductions have greatly decreasing benefit as ambient ozone concentrations approach the 

level of that standard (2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3-9), we have focused our evaluation on the effect of 

applying RACT level controls on the solid fuel-fired boiler category. Specifically, we have 

evaluated whether the potential additional reductions from requiring RACT-level controls on 

major source solid fuel-fired boilers in the SJV, when combined with other potential 

RACM/RACT, would provide sufficient additional reductions to attain in 2023. We are using 

 38 We note that the VOC reductions in the near term do contribute to reducing ozone levels even though 

they are not necessary to meet the CAA’s requirement for RFP and will need to be combined with significant NOx

reductions to achieve attainment. See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3-9. 

39 As an extreme ozone nonattainment area, SJV’s statutory attainment date is June 15, 2024. In order to 

attain by that date, the area must have all reductions needed for attainment in place by 2023. Thus, to advance 

attainment by one year, we must advance the needed emissions reductions by one year. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 53

2023 rather than 2022 because more information is available on projected controlled emissions 

levels in that year. Fleet turnover from existing mobile source measures will reduce NOx

emissions in the SJV by approximately 10 tpd between 2022 and 2023. If additional RACM 

measures cannot provide sufficient reductions to attain in 2023, they will not be able to provide 

sufficient emissions reductions in 2022 to both compensate for the reductions lost from fleet turn 

over in 2022 and to attain. 

TABLE C-4 

Rules Applicable to the SJV that Have Not Been Found to Meet 

the CAA Section 182(b)(2) RACT Requirement 

District Rule Pollutant Cite for EPA Action 

Rule 4352 – Solid Fuel Fired 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters 

NOx 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010) 

Rule 4401 – Steam Enhanced Crude 

Oil Productions Wells VOC 75 FR 3996 (January 26, 2010) 

Rule 4402 – Crude Oil Production 

Sumps VOC 76 FR 298 (January 4, 2011) 

Rule 4694 – Wine Fermentation and 

Storage Tanks VOC Amendments adopted August 18, 2011 – not yet submitted 

Rule 4605 – Aerospace Assembly 

and Component Coating Operations VOC 75 FR 3996 (January 26, 2010) 

Rule 4625 – Wastewater Separators VOC 76 FR 298 (January 4, 2011) 

Rule 4682 – Polystyrene Foam, 

Polyethylene, and Polypropylene 

Manufacturing 

VOC Proposed: 76 FR 41745 (July 15, 

2011) 

Rule 4684 – Polyester Resin 

Operations VOC 75 FR 3996 (January 26, 2010) 

Rule 4566 – Organic Material 

Composting Operations VOC Rule adopted August 18, 2011 – not yet submitted 

Fumigant Volatile Organic 

Compound Regulations VOC 

California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation – submitted 

August 2, 2011 

As shown in Table C-5 below, the projected 2023 NOx emissions level would still be well 

above the level needed for attainment even after accounting for all controls adopted through 

2011, eliminating all emissions from solid-fuel boilers (a level of control well beyond RACT), 

assuming the maximum feasible reductions from TCM in 2023 (as discussed above), fully 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

crediting reductions from measures that are not currently creditable, and including the estimated 

reductions from identified measures that are yet to be adopted. 

TABLE C-5 

Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing 

RACT on Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers on Expeditious Attainment of the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard in the SJV 

NOx in tpd 2023 

Projected 2023 emissions levels with controls adopted 

prior to 2011 195 

- 51 Emissions from solid fuel-fired boilers 

Potential emissions reductions from TCM - 5 

Reductions from currently non-creditable measures (Rule 

9510 and Rule 4230) - 2.8 

Remaining CARB commitments2 - 4.7 

Estimated reductions from Rule 4702 as revised on August 

18, 20113 - 1.4 

Emissions level with additional measures 176.1 

Target emissions level for attainment 141 

1

 Solid fuel-fired boilers are projected to emit 4.7 tpd of NOx in 2020. Data from CARB’s on-line CEPAM: 

2009 Almanac at http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2009.php 

2

 Calculated by subtracting from CARB’s 2023 46 tpd NOx commitments (Table D-6) the adjustment to 

baseline from State & federal sources on Table D-8 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from creditable State 

measures on Table D-10 (19.8 tpd) 

3

 SJVAPCD, Staff Report on Rule 4702, Appendix B (August 18, 2011)

Based on our review of these RACM analyses, the District’s and California’s adopted 

rules as well as their commitments to adopt and implement controls, and our analysis of the 

impact of implementing unadopted RACT measures, we propose to find that there are, at this 

time, no additional reasonably available control measures that would advance attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. Therefore, we propose to find that the SJV 2007 Ozone 

Plan, together with the 2007 State Strategy, provides for the implementation of RACM as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(1). 

This proposed finding does not affect the District’s continuing obligation under CAA 

sections 182(b)(2) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(ii) to implement RACT on all major sources 

and all CTG source categories. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 54
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

D. Control Strategy 

1. Requirements for Control Strategies

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 ozone implementation rule requires 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). 

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 

SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of 

enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. It believes that the CAA 

allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy 

requirement when they are limited in scope. The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6), given 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 designated 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. 

Congress recognized that extreme ozone nonattainment areas may have to rely to a 

certain extent on new or improved technologies to achieve the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment and RFP. CAA section 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve an extreme area plan and 

attainment demonstration that anticipate development of new control technologies or 

improvement of existing control technologies. This new technology provision is described 

further in section II.E of this TSD. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 55
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 56

2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

For the purposes of evaluating the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP and revised 2007 State Strategy, 

we have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet 

the RACM and contingency measures requirements 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 2007 (i.e., prior to the development of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the attainment year of 

2023 and beyond. 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. 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 SJV. See Table F-1 in this TSD. 

Control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, and commitments that 

provide the additional increment of emissions reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to 

demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM/RACT, and/or provide for contingency measures. 

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in 

the Appendices A and B to this TSD. 

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and 

implementing 19 new control measures for VOC or NOx. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1 

(revised December 18, 2008) and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 07-04-011a, p. 6. In 

Table D-1 below, we list these measures, which mostly involve strengthening existing District 

rules, along with their anticipated and actual adoption dates, anticipated and actual final 

compliance dates, and anticipated and actual initial implementation dates. As can be seen from 

Table D-1, the District has met its rulemaking schedule to date and has only two rule actions 

remaining. 

Reductions anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the time the 2007 Ozone Plan 

was adopted are listed in Table D-2. In Table D-3, we give the current SIP submittal and 

approval status of the measures in the Plan. In Table D-4,we show the emissions reductions from 

the rules as adopted. Actual reductions from each rule, once adopted, often differ from those 

anticipated in the plan. In Table D-5, we list the emissions reductions from rules that are either 

approved or proposed for approval and therefore are creditable in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and for other CAA purposes. 

For a number of potential measures identified during the District’s RACM analysis, 

insignificant information was available to evaluate the feasibility of implementing them in the 

San Joaquin Valley. For these measures, the District developed a schedule for performing 

feasibility studies. See 2007 Ozone Plan, page 6-6 and Table 6-4. Measures that are identified as 

being feasible through these studies will be included in future plan updates with schedules and 

emissions reduction commitments. 

The District also developed programs to reduce emissions through incentive programs 

and innovative strategies and programs. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

TABLE D-1 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number Adoption Date Earliest Compliance Date 

Anticipated Actual Anticipated Actual Ant

S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids 4565 1st Q - 2007 March 2007 2008 2008 2S-AGR-1 Open Burning (Phase IV) 4103 2nd Q – 2010 April 2010 2010 2010 2S-SOL-11 Solvents 

Organic Solvents 4661 

3rd Q – 2007 

September 

2007 

2010 

2008 

2

Organic Solvent Degreasing September 2007 4662 2008 

Organic Solvent Cleaning September 2007 4663 2008 

S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 3rd Q – 2007 September 2007 2012 2012 2S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination 4651 3rd Q – 2007 September 2007 2008 2008 S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam 4682 3rd Q – 2007 September 2007 2010 2010 2S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 

4623 4624 

4th Q – 2007 December 2007 2009 2009 2

S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage — 3rd Q – 2007 found not feasible 2010 — 2S-COM-1 Large Boilers 

4306 4320 

3rd Q – 2008 October 2008 2012 2012 to 2014 2

S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3rd Q – 2008 October 2008 2012 2010 to 2016 2

EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

TABLE D-1 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number Adoption Date Earliest Compliance Date 

Anticipated Actual Anticipated Actual Ant

S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3rd Q – 2008 October 2008 2009 NOx limits – 2014-2018 2S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts 4607 4th Q – 2008 December 2008 2011 2010 2S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1st Q – 2009 March 2009 Attrition Attrition 2S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste 4566 4th Q 0 2010 August 2011 2012 2012 2S-IND-21 Flares 4311 2nd Q – 2009 June 2009 NA (2010) 2011 NA S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging 4695 3rd Q – 2009 September 2009 NA 2012 S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings 4601 4th Q – 2009 December 2009 2012 2011 2S-AGR-2 CAFO 4570 2nd Q – 2010 October 2010 2011 2011 2S-SOL-6 Adhesives 4653 3rd Q – 2010 September 2010 2012 2011 2

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008. Actual information from specific rules. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

TABLE D-2 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitme

(tons per summer day) 

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2008 2011 2012 2014 2017 

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.5 S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.61 0.64 S-COM-1 Large Boilers 0.0 0.0 0.69 0.72 0.75 S-COM-2 Medium Boilers 0.0 0.0 0.51 0.51 0.51 S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.8 S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 0.0 0.2 0.25 0.4 0.55 S-IND-21 Flares 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Commitment to Total NOx Reductions 2.3 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 

VOC Emissions Reductions 

2008 2011 2012 2014 2017 

S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids 2 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.0 S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 S-SOL-11 Solvents 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.39 1.46 S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.11 S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 0.0 0.9 0.92 0.99 1.03 EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

TABLE D-2 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitme

(tons per summer day) 

S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage 0.0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.08 S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste 0.0 0.0 9 10 10 S-IND-21 Flares 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings 0.0 0.0 2 2.1 2.1 S-AGR-2 CAFO 0.0 6.8 6.7 18.9 20.4 S-SOL-6 Adhesives 0.0 0.0 0.11 0.17 0.12 

Commitment to Total VOC Reductions 3.3 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE D-3 

Approval and Submittal Status of SJVAPCD Rules in the 2007 Ozone Plan 

Rule Status Dates and Citations 

Rule 4565 Biosolids, Animal Manure, and 

Poultry Litter Operations 

Proposed for 

approval 76 FR 56706 (September 14, 2011) 

Rule 4103 Open Burning 

Approved 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009) 

Proposed for 

approval 76 FR 40660 (July 11, 2011) 

Rule 4661 Organic Solvents Approved 75 FR 24406 (May 5, 2010) 

Rule 4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing Approved 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009) 

Rule 4663 Organic Solvent. Cleaning Approved 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009) 

Rule 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines Approved 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009) 

Rule 4651 Soil Decontamination Approved 74 FR 52894 (October 15, 2009) 

Rule 4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and 

Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 

Proposed for 

approval 

76 FR 41745 (July 15, 2011) 

Limited approval/limited disapproval 

Rules 4621/4622 Gasoline Storage & 

Transfer Approved 74 FR 33397 (July 13, 2009) 

S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage — Found unfeasible 

Rule 4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) 

Rule 4320 - Advanced Emissions 

Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

Approved without 

credit 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011) 

Rule 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) 

Rule 4308 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MM 

Btu/hr) 

Approved 76 FR 5276 (January 31, 2011) 

Rule 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces Approved 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011) 

Rule 4607 Graphic Arts Approved 74 FR 52849 (October 15, 2009) 

Rule 4605 Aerospace Coating Proposed for 

approval 76 FR 56134 (September 12, 2011) 

Rule 4902 Residential Water Heaters Approved 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010) 

Rule 4566 Composting Green Waste Adopted August 18, 

2011 New Rule 

Rule 4311 Flares Proposed for 

approval 76 FR 52623 (August 23, 2011) 

Rule 4695 Brandy and Wine Aging Approved 76 FR 47076 (August 4, 2011) 

EPA- Region 9 Page 61
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 62

TABLE D-3 

Approval and Submittal Status of SJVAPCD Rules in the 2007 Ozone Plan 

Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings Proposed for 

approval 76 FR 35167 (June 16, 2011) 

Rule 4570 Confined Animal Facilities Proposed for 

approval 76 FR 56706 (September 14, 2011) 

Rule 4653 Adhesives Submitted Action pending. Previous version of the rule 

approved 74 FR 52894 (October 15, 2009) 

Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip 

Reduction Submitted New Rule 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

TABLE D-4 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted1

(tons per summer day)

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2011 2012 2014 2017 

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 S-COM-1 Large, Medium and Small Boilers 0.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 1.5 2.2 3.8 4.1 S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 

Employer-Based Trip Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 

Total NOx reductions from rules as adopted 3.6 8.4 11.3 11.8 

Commitment to total NOx reductions 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 

NOx reductions remaining as commitment 0.8 -2.4 -5.0 -4.8 

Source: Email, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA date, attachment “2007 Ozone Plan Emissions Reductions.” Red

the sum of the reductions listed in the attachment and reductions on Table D-2 above. 

1 Rules with no estimated reductions or zero reductions are not shown. 

EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

TABLE D-4 – CONTINUED

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted1

(tons per summer day)

VOC Emissions Reductions 

2011 2012 2014 2017 

S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 S-AGR-1 Open Burning 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 S-SOL-11 Solvents 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.3 S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.4 S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings 0 2.8 3.0 3.2 S-AGR-2 CAFO 20.3 20.7 21.5 22.8 S-SOL-6 Adhesives 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 

Employer-Based Trip Reduction 

Total VOC reductions from rules as adopted 34.9 38.3 40.5 42.0 

Commitment to total VOC reductions 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 

VOC reductions remaining as commitment -19.6 -11.8 0.0 0.2 

Source: Email, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA July 7, 2011, attachment “2007 Ozone Plan Emissions Reductionadjustment for open burning should be -0.19 and not the -2.19 listed on this table). Reductions shown are the sum of the reductionattachment and reductions on Table D-2 above. 1 Rules with no estimated reductions or reductions off zero are not shown. 

EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

Table D-5 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Current SIP Creditable Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Ado

(tons per summer day)

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2011 2012 2014 2017 

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 S-COM-1 Large, Medium and Small Boilers 0 1.8 1.9 2.1 S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 1.5 2.2 3.8 4.1 S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 

Total SIP Creditable NOx Reductions from Rules 3.6 6.2 10.3 11.1 

Commitment to total NOx reductions 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 

NOx reductions remaining as commitment 0.8 -0.2 -4.0 -3.3 

EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

Table D-5 - Continued 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Current SIP Creditable Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Ado

(tons per summer day)

VOC Emissions Reductions 

2011 2012 2014 2017 

S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 S-AGR-1 Open Burning 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 S-SOL-11 Solvents 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.3 S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.4 S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings 0 2.8 3.0 3.2 S-AGR-2 CAFO 20.3 20.7 21.5 22.8 

Total SIP Creditable VOC Reductions from Rules 34.3 37.7 39.8 41.3 

Commitment to total VOC reductions 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 

VOC reductions remaining as commitment -19.0 -11.2 0.7 0.8 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

b. CARB Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 

CARB’s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy consist of three parts: 

1. Commitment to achieve emissions reductions by specific dates; 

2. Commitment to propose defined new SIP measures; and 

3. A long-term strategy commitment. 

See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 3. 

The 2007 State Strategy includes enforceable commitments to achieve specific aggregate 

reductions of NOx and VOC in the SJV by certain dates. See Table D-6 below. 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 CARB’s total emission reduction 

commitments. 

Id. 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 67
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 68

Table D-6 

CARB Commitments to Specific Aggregate Emissions Reductions 

(tons per summer day) 

2014 2017 2020 2023 

2023 

CAA 

§182(e)(5) 

VOC 23 —1 24 25 —1 

NOx 76 88-93 56 46 81 

Source: 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6 and the 2009 State 

Strategy Update, p. 23. 

1

 No commitment to VOC reductions in 2017 or to VOC reductions pursuant to CAA §182(e)(5) advanced 

technologies provision.

The 2007 State Strategy also includes CARB’s commitments to proposed specific 

defined measures. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 62 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, 

p. 8, 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A-7. Table D-7 

below lists these defined measures and their current adoption and approval status. 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 to most of these measures. These new 

measures build on the State’s already extensive set of adopted measure; a list of which can be 

found in the 2007 State Strategy (p. 38) and in Appendix A of this TSD. 

Table D-7 

2007 State Strategy Adopted Defined Measures 

Current Status 

State Measures Expected 

Action Year Current Status 

Smog Check Improvements 2007-2009 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 

2010)40

Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement (AB 118) 2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010. 

 40 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct 

older vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and certification effective 2013. 

Reductions shown for the SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report and this TSD do not include reductions 

from AB 2289 improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, attachment 5. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 69

Table D-7 

2007 State Strategy Adopted Defined Measures 

Current Status 

State Measures Expected 

Action Year Current Status 

Modification to 

Reformulated Gasoline 

Program 

2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010) 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty 

Trucks 

2007, 2008, 

and 2010 

Proposed for approval: 76 FR 40652 (July 

11, 2011) 

Accelerated Introduction of 

Cleaner Locomotives 2008 

Prop 1B bond 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. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Engines 2007, 2010 Waiver decision pending. 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery 

for Above Ground Storage 

Tanks 

2008 Adopted June 2007. Requirements imposed 

through District Rule 4621 

Consumer Products Program 

(I & II) 

2008, 2009, 

2011 

Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 

2009) and 76 FR 27613 (May 12, 2011) 

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 2008, 2009 Adopted 2008, revised 2009 and 2011. 

Submitted October 2009 and August 2011 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Update, p.4, 2011 Progress Report, Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 

Appendix A-3. Additional information from www.ca.arb.gov. 

Finally, the 2007 State Strategy includes CARB’s long-term commitments to achieve the 

emissions reductions still needed for attainment after the implementation of the defined measures 

and the achievement of the specific aggregate emissions reductions.41 See 2007 State Strategy, 

p. 66: “[c]onsistent with section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act, [the 2007 State Strategy] 

includes long-term commitments to achieve the last increment of emission reductions necessary 

to fully meet attainment goals in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley.” When the 2007 State 

Strategy was submitted in November 2007, CARB estimated that an additional 81 tpd in NOx

reductions beyond those already identified would be needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the San Joaquin Valley. 2007 State Strategy, p. 66. See also Table D-7 above. 

 41 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. We 

discuss the CAA section 182(e)(5) provision as well as CARB’s SIP submittals related to it in section II.E.
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 70

The SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007, demonstrates that a 75 

percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an 

attainment target level of 160 tpd NOx. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NOx emissions downward by 12 percent. This 

revision to the base year inventory resulted from changes to inventorying methodologies. See 

Section II.A. of this TSD. 

Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal approach for evaluating the impact of these 

base year inventory changes on the attainment target would be to perform new air quality 

modeling. Both Agencies also recognize the time and effort involved in such modeling for an 

area that is as large and diverse as the San Joaquin Valley. As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB has committed to update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan modeling to reflect the 

emissions inventory improvements and any other new information by December 31, 2014 or by 

the date the SIPs are due for the revised 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first. See 

CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8. 

As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB qualitatively 

evaluated the impact on the attainment target of the revision to this base year inventory and 

concluded that the 160 tpd target remains viable.42 See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-9. The 

160 tpd target represents a 72 percent reduction off the revised 2002 base year level. CARB also 

recognized, however, that a reduction of up to 75 percent from the revised baseline (an 

attainment target level of 141.3 tpd) may be necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

in the SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to achieve all emissions 

reductions that are necessary to provide for attainment. See CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3. 

As EPA stated in its comment letter on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,43 we 

believe that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NOx emissions level, based on the 

modeling provided in the Plan as submitted in 2007, provides the best available estimate of the 

NOx reductions needed to reach attainment. In our letter, we recommended that CARB commit 

to revising the modeling by a specific date and to commit, in the interim, to achieving a 75 

percent reduction in NOx from the revised 2002 base year levels by 2023. We noted that these 

recommendations are consistent with CARB’s continuing strong commitment and efforts to 

achieve the emission reductions needed for attainment of the air quality standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley and the rest of California. 

In response, CARB included a commitment to update the 2007 SIP modeling for the SJV 

to reflect emissions inventory improvements and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the 

emissions reductions necessary to provide for attainment. CARB has stated that these 

commitments are sufficient to address the concerns we raised in our comment letter. See 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1. 

 42 For reasons discussed in the air quality modeling section of this TSD (Section II.B.), EPA does not fully 

agree with the assumptions used by CARB in its evaluation. 

43 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Divisions, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, July 20, 2011. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA notes that the reductions needed to reach a target level of 141 tpd relative to the 

reductions needed to meet a target level of 160 tpd are fall within CARB’s long-term measures 

(new technologies) commitment under CAA section 182(e)(5). 

In addition to the base year inventory changes, CARB has adjusted future year baseline 

emissions to reflect methodology changes and improved data. See section II.A.2. of this TSD, 

Tables D-8 and D-9 show original and adjusted baseline emissions inventories for the source 

categories. Table D-10 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. 

Table D-11 shows the reductions from State measures that are current SIP creditable. 

TABLE D-8 

Original and Adjusted NOx Baseline Emissions Inventories by Measure 

(tons per summer day 2023)

State Measure Orig. Adjusted Change 

Smog Check Improvements 24.0 24.8 0.8 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks & Buses 73.1 55.9 -17.2 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 21.1 21.1 0.0 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp) 17.7 11.2 -6.5 

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 5.8 5.8 0.0 

District Emissions Sources 113 66 -47.1 

All Other State and Federal Emissions Sources 41 42 1.4 

Totals: 295 227 -68.5 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 1. 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 71
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE D-9 

Original and Adjusted VOC Baseline Emissions Inventories by Measure 

(tons per summer day 2023)

State Measure Orig. Adjusted Change 

Smog Check Improvements 33.4 34.7 1.3 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks & Buses 7.9 5.9 -2.0 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 1.6 1.6 0.0 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp) 2.7 1.2 -1.5 

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 16.8 16.8 0.0 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicles Standards 12.5 12.5 0.0 

Consumer Products Program 29.9 29.9 0.0 

Pesticides: DPR Regulation 17.9 19.3 1.4 

District Emissions Sources 261 256 -5.0 

All Other State and Federal Emissions Sources 26 26 0.0 

Totals: 409 403 -6.0 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision Supplement, Attachment 1.

TABLE D-10 

Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures 

San Joaquin Valley 

(tons per summer day, 2023) 

State Measures NOx VOC 

Smog Check Improvements 1.0 3.0 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks & Buses 16.9 0.9 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 0.0 0.0 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp) 1.9 0.2 

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 0.0 0.0 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicles Standards -- 0.0 

Consumer Products Program -- 5.0 

Pesticides: DPR Regulation -- 1.2 

Totals: 19.8 10.3 

Source: Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 6. Only defined measures with VOC and/or 

NOx reductions in the SJV are shown here.

EPA- Region 9 Page 72
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 73

TABLE D-11 

Creditable Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures 

San Joaquin Valley 

(tons per summer day, 2023) 

State Measure NOx VOC 

Smog Check Improvements 1.0 3.0 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks & Buses 16.9 0.9 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 0.0 0.0 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (>25hp) 1.9 0.2 

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 0.0 0.0 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicles Emissions Standards -- 0.0 

Consumer Products Program -- 5.0 

Totals: 19.8 9.1 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

a. Baseline Measures 

As shown in Table F-1, the majority of the NOx emissions reductions and a substantial 

fraction of the VOC emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV come from baseline measures. These reductions come from a 

combination of District and State measures.44 Reductions needed to demonstrate RFP come 

entirely from baseline and adopted control measures. See section II.G. of this TSD 

In the past two decades, SJVAPCD has adopted (and in many case revised each several 

times) more than 70 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of either NOx or VOC including all of 

the rule adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of its 2007 Ozone Plan. See Appendix B and 

Table D-1. These rules include controls for boilers, numerous solvent source categories, oil 

production and refining operations, and agricultural sources. The great majority of these rules 

and rule revisions are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully 

creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other CAA requirements. 

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 

 44 Reductions in the baseline also come from federal measures. These federal measures include EPA’s 

national emissions 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 74

“waiver measure”) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (“non-waiver 

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).45

i. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for most of California’s on- and 

non-road 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 the 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 non-road 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 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 

 45 EPA 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, a copy of which may be found in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

treated the California non-road standards similarly to the Federal non-road standards, which are 

relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs. 

Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road and non-road 

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 non-road vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding California non-road 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 non-road 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 

EPA- Region 9 Page 75
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 76

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.46 The San Joaquin Valley 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 

 46 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 26, 1980). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 non-road 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 non-road 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 emissions reductions resulting from waiver measures in 

SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures’ absence from the SIP itself. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 77
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 78

ii. Non-waiver measures

These measures include improvements to California’s inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program, SmogCheck, and cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations. Generally, the State’s 

baseline non-waiver measures have been approved by EPA into the SIP and are fully creditable 

for meeting CAA requirements. See TSD, Appendix A. 

b. Control Strategy

We propose to approve the SJVUAPCD's commitments to achieve specific aggregate 

emissions reductions of NOx and VOC by specific years as given in Table 6-2 of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan. We are not proposing to approve SJVAPCD’s commitments to adopt and implement 

specific control measures on the schedule identified in Table 6-2 (as amended December 18, 

2008) in the 2007 Ozone Plan because, as of August 16, 2011 with the adoption of the Rule 

4655, these commitments have all been fulfilled. 

We are proposing to approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, 

as given in Table B-1 in 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. 

Appendix A-3. See Table D-7 above. We are also proposing to approve CARB’s commitment to 

achieve the total aggregate emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV as given in CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 

2007), Appendix B, p. 3, whether these reductions are realized from the new measures, 

alternative control measures, incentive programs, or other emissions decreases in the area. See. 

This commitment is shown in Table D-6 above. 

The SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007 demonstrates that a 75 

percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an 

attainment target level of 160 tpd NOx. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NOx emissions downward by 12 percent. This 

revision to the base year inventory resulted from changes to inventorying methodologies. See 

Section II.A. of this TSD. 

Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal approach for evaluating the impact of these 

base year inventory changes on the attainment target would be to perform new air quality 

modeling. Both Agencies also recognize the time and effort involved in such modeling for an 

area that is as large and diverse as the San Joaquin Valley. As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB has committed to update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan modeling to reflect the 

emissions inventory improvements and any other new information by December 31, 2014 or by 

the date the SIPs are due for the revised 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first. See 

CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8. 

As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB qualitatively 

evaluated the impact on the attainment target of the revision to this base year inventory and 

concluded that the 160 tpd target remains viable.47 See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-9. The 

 47 For reasons discussed in the air quality modeling section of this TSD (Section II.B.), EPA does not fully 

agree with the assumptions used by CARB in its evaluation. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 79

160 tpd target represents a 72 percent reduction off the revised 2002 base year level. CARB, 

however, also recognized that a 75 percent reduction from the revised baseline (an attainment 

target level of 141.3 tpd) is the outside bound of the NOx reductions needed to attainment the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to 

achieve all emissions reductions that are necessary to provide for attainment. See CARB 

Resolution 11-22, p. 3. 

As EPA stated in its comment letter on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, we 

believe that the current model’s estimate that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NOx

emissions level provides the best available estimate of the NOx reductions needed to reach 

attainment. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, July 20, 

2011. In our letter, we recommended that CARB commit to revising the modeling by a specific 

date and that, in the interim, it also commit to achieving a 75 percent reduction in NOx from the 

revised 2002 base year levels by 2023. We noted that these recommendations are consistent with 

CARB’s continuing strong commitment and efforts to achieve the emission reductions needed 

for attainment of the air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley and the rest of California. 

In response, CARB included a commitment to update the 2007 SIP modeling for the SJV 

to reflect emissions inventory improvements and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the 

emissions reduction necessary to provide for attainment. CARB has stated that these 

commitments are sufficient to address the concerns we raised in our comment letter. See letter, 

Lynn Terry, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, August 10, 2011 submitting supplement 

information in support of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. 

EPA notes that the reductions needed to reach a target level of 141 tpd relative to the 

reductions needed to meet a target level of 160 tpd are attributed to CARB’s long-term 

commitment which is discussed in the next section. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 80

E. 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 standard. 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 that: 

1. the provisions are not necessary to achieve the incremental reductions required during 

the first 10 years after November 15, 1990; 48 and 

2. the State has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt contingency 

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 standard by the 

applicable dates. If 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 the provisions related to new technologies 

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 

 48 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, June 15, 2004. 

 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 81

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 SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP

The 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP demonstrated that 81 tpd of NOx reductions from long-term 

measures (CARB terminology for the new technologies provisions) were needed in order to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV by 2024. The District’s and State’s long-term 

strategies are discussed in section 11.5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan (pp. 11-5 to 11-10) and on page 

54-57 in the 2007 State Strategy. Additional information and updates have been provided by the 

District in the 2010 Ozone MCR (sections 5 and 6) and the State in the 2009 State Strategy 

Update (p. 25) and the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions (Appendix A-4) 

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 San Joaquin 

Valley by 2020. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 54. For this analysis, CARB assumed that all 

passenger cars would be 10 years old or younger, all diesel trucks would meet the 2010 NOx

standards, all diesel construction and farm equipment would meet the most stringent tier 4 

standards, all locomotives would meet U.S. EPA’s then-proposed 2017 NOx standards, and all 

the new stationary sources measure in the 2007 Ozone Plan would be fully implemented. This 

fiscally-unconstrained scenario showed that in 2020 the SJV would still be approximately 35 tpd 

above its attainment target of 160 tpd of NOx. Id.

The District also evaluated the impact of accelerating the deployment of the cleanestavailable on- and off-road engines through incentive fund grants. The District found that even 

with an investment of $2.5 billion between 2007 and 2023 and no other technology or logistic 

constraints, portions of the SJV would still not meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 2007 

Ozone Plan, Chapter 7.49

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. It 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. 

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 

 49 The District included its “An Action Plan for Reducing Emissions with Incentive Funds” as Chapter 7 of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan. Sections 7.6 and 7.7 were submitted for informational purposes only and are not intended to 

become part of the SIP. See p. 7-15. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 testing 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 San Joaquin Valley, the focus has been on an area that straddles Kern 

and Tulare counties, which is impacted by mobile source emissions from the goods movement 

corridor of Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and stationary sources from a variety of emissions 

sources such as energy production facilities, farms, and agricultural processing operations. The 

City of Bakersfield is within the focus area of the pilot project. Bakersfield has the highest 

wintertime PM concentrations in the Valley, and the city of Arvin nearby has some of the highest 

8-hour ozone concentrations in the summer. 

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 standard. 

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 zeroEPA- Region 9 Page 82
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 83

emission 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. 50 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. 

In addition, the District is pursuing innovative strategies. Its “Fast Track” strategy 

includes opportunities to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks by shifting goods movement 

to lower-emission alternatives, such as short-sea shipping. In 2010, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation awarded the Ports of Stockton, West Sacramento, and Oakland with a $30 million 

grant to move goods between Oakland and the two inland ports over the San Joaquin-Sacramento 

Delta. 

The District has also adopted a Technology Advancement Program (TAP) which is its 

strategic approach to encouraging innovation and development of new emission reduction 

technologies. The TAP will consist of an ongoing review of new technology concepts, 

interagency partnerships, funding for technology advancement programs, and collaborations to 

build and expand local capacity for research and development in the SJV. For more information 

 50 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, dated August 29, 2011. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

about the SJV TAP, see http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition 

to the TAP, the District has established a Regional Energy Efficiency Strategy to support 

technology development and deployment in the Valley. The Regional Energy Efficiency 

Program lays out goals and measures that will guide the District’s actions to reduce emissions 

caused by electricity and natural gas consumption in residential, industrial, and institutional 

settings. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, pp. A-11 to A-12. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusion 

CARB and the SJVAPCD have demonstrated a clear need for emissions reduction from 

new and improved control technologies to reduce air pollution in the SJV. The adopted control 

measures and enforceable commitments, discussed in section II.D. above, provide the majority, 

but not all, of the balance of the emissions reductions needed to attain by June 15, 2024. See 

Table F-3. For the balance of the reductions needed for attainment, the SJV 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 SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP, we are proposing to approve the CARB’s and District’s long-term strategy provisions and 

related commitments in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP under CAA section 182(e)(5). This 

proposal is based on our proposed findings that these provisions satisfy the two criteria in CAA 

section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). 

First, the SJV 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.G. 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 the 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 

emission 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. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 84
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

CARB has also committed to achieve 81 tpd of NOx 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 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 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. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 85
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

F. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirement 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 ozone 

implementation rule (40 CFR § 51.908), the attainment demonstration is due within three years 

of the area’s designation as nonattainment and should include: 

(1) technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing 

violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the nonattainment area; 

(2) adopted measure 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 70 FR 71612 at 71615. 

The requirements for items 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory, air quality 

modeling, and RACM sections of this TSD. Requirements for item 3 are discussed in the 

contingency measures sections of this TSD. In this section, we evaluate how these items taken 

together provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as 

expeditiously as practicable 

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The attainment demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan is given in Section 11.2. It is 

summarized in Table F-1 below. Table F-2 shows the contributions by the District and CARB to 

the control strategy. 

Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 Ozone Plan, both 

CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures in their Strategy/Plan, and many have 

been approved by or submitted to EPA. See Tables D-3 and D-6. The State has also revised parts 

of the base year and future year baseline emissions inventory to reflect improved methodologies 

and data. The effect of these revisions to the attainment demonstration are shown in Table F-3. 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 86
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE F-1 

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration as Submitted November 2007 

(tons per summer day, 2023)

VOC NOx

A 2006 baseline emissions level 450 650 

B 2023 attainment target level 342 160 

C Total reductions needed from 2002 baseline levels to attain 

in 2023 108 490 

D 2023 baseline emissions level 409 295 

E Reductions from baseline measures 41 355 

% of reductions needed for attainment from baseline 

measures 

38% 72% 

F Reductions needed from control strategy measures 67 135 

% of reductions needed for attainment from control 

strategy measures including new technologies 62% 28% 

Source: CARB Staff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Tables 6 (Lines A, B and D) and 14 (Lines C, E, and F). 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 87
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE F-2 

Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency in the Attainment 

Demonstration as Submitted November 2007 

(tons per summer day)

VOC NOx

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy 

measures to attain 108 490 

B Total reductions from control strategy measures 67 135 

C District commitments/measures 47 9 

% of total control strategy reductions from District 

commitments 70% 7% 

D State commitments 23 46 

% of total control strategy reductions from State 

commitments 30% 34% 

E New technology – 801 

% of total control strategy reductions from new 

technologies – 59% 

Source: CARB Staff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 14 1

 CARB’s commitment is to 81 tpd NOx reduction from new technologies. See CARB Resolution 07-28 

(September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 88
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE F-3 

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Updated July 2011 

(tons per summer day, 2023)

VOC NOx

A 2002 baseline emissions level 457.5 565.2 

B 2023 attainment target level 342 141 

C Total reductions needed from 2002 baseline levels to attain 

in 2023 (A – B) 115.5 424.2 

D 2023 remaining emissions (baseline measures and control 

strategy measures adopted prior to June 2011) 338.6 195

Reductions from baseline measures and control strategy 

measures adopted prior to June 20111 118 370 

% of reductions needed for attainment from baseline 

measures and control strategy measures adopted prior to 

June 2011 

103% 87% 

Reductions needed from remaining commitments and new 

technologies 0 54 

% of reductions needed from remaining commitments and 

new technologies 0% 13% 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-3. 

1

 Includes State and District measures as adopted whether SIP creditable and non creditable. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

a. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstrations 

A portion of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard in the SJV is in the form of enforceable commitments. We describe these 

enforceable commitments in section II.C. above. 

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 

SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of 

enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. It believes that the CAA 

allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy 

requirement when they are limited in scope. Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant 

use of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors in determining whether to 

approve the use of enforceable commitment to meet CAA requirements: (a) does the 

commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) is the state capable 

EPA- Region 9 Page 89
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 90

of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.51

As shown in Table F-4 below, reductions in the projected future year baseline inventory 

from measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to and as part of the 2007 

Ozone Plan as well as the subsequent 2008 PM2.5 Plan) and approved or proposed for approval 

by EPA provide the great majority of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. The balance is in the form of either enforceable 

commitments to specific aggregate emissions reductions by the District and CARB and or 

emissions reductions from new or improved technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5). 

We believe that, with respect to the 2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP, circumstances warrant 

the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the 

SJV.52 As shown in Table F-1 above, the majority of NOx emissions reductions and a substantial 

fraction of the VOC reductions needed to demonstrate RFP and attainment in the SJV come from 

rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., from the baseline measures. As a 

result of these State and District efforts, most sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area are currently subject to stringent rules adopted prior to the State Strategy’s and the Plan’s 

development, leaving few opportunities (and generally more technologically and economically 

challenging ones) to further reduce emissions. In the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State 

Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures that could contribute many 

of the additional emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix I 

and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and 

implement these measures went many years beyond the November 2007 submittal date of the 

SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP. These circumstances warrant the District’s and CARB’s reliance on 

enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. 

Given the State’s demonstrated need for reliance on enforceable commitments, 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) do the 

commitments address a limited portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) is the state 

capable of fulfilling its commitments; and (c) are the commitment for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. 

i. 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 to demonstrate RFP 

 51 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). 

52 Based on SIP-creditable measures adopted to date, the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP does not rely on 

enforceable commitments to aggregate emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we discuss here only those enforceable commitments relied on to demonstrate 

attainment. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 91

and attainment in a nonattainment area. For this calculation, reductions assigned to the new 

technologies provision (CAA section 182(e)(5)) are not counted as commitments.53

As shown Table D-12, the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments, after 

accounting for approved measures and advanced technology measures, needed to demonstration 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and 4.6 

tpd of NOx (the remaining portion of CARB’s 2023 NOx commitment). When compared to the 

total reductions needed to demonstration attainment, the remaining portion of the enforceable 

commitments represents at most 6.7 percent of the needed VOC and 1.1 percent of the needed 

NOx. Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with enforceable commitments in the range of 10 

percent or less. See 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), the Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone plan at 

66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001), proposed approval of the SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP at 76 FR 

41338 (July 13, 2011), and proposed approval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 76 FR 41562 

(July 14, 2011). 

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 the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. 

These submittals show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable 

commitments for the San Joaquin Valley. 

The District has already exceeded its commitments for reducing NOx emissions for the 

attainment year of 2023. See Table D-4. It also has already adopted rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) 

that are projected to achieve NOx reductions in the attainment year. These reductions, however, 

are not currently creditable to the attainment and RFP demonstrations. In addition, it has adopt 

revisions to District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) that are likely to 

achieve substantial NOx reductions. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report Proposed 

Amendments To Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines), August 18, 2011. It has also adopted 

Rule 4566 (Organic Materials Composting Operations) that will achieve an estimated 19 tpd 

reductions in VOC (in SIP currency) by 2017. See SJVUAPCD, “Final Draft Staff Report, 

Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 (Organic Material Composting Operations),” August 18, 

2011, Appendix B, p. B-3. Finally, the District is also continuing to work to identify and adopt 

additional 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 

 53 CAA section 182(e)(5) specifically allows EPA to approve an attainment demonstration that relies on 

reductions from new technologies. This provision is separate from the requirement in CAA section 172(c)(6) for 

enforceable emissions limitations under which enforceable commitments are considered. As a result, reductions 

attributed in the attainment demonstration to new technologies are not considered part of the State’s enforceable 

commitments for the purposes of determine the percent of the reductions needed for attainment that remain as 

commitments.. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 92

from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment 

demonstration. See, for example, SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.354

Given the State's and District’s efforts to date to reduce emissions, we believe that the 

State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to adopt measures to 

reduce emissions of NOx and VOC to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

in the San Joaquin Valley by June 15, 2024. 

TABLE F-4 

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments 

based on Approved or Proposed for Approval Measures 

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC 

A Revised 2002 baseline emissions level 565.2 457.5 

B Attainment target level 141 342 

C 

Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain (A-B) 423.9 115.5 

D 

Reductions from baseline measures and 

adjustments (Table D-11) 338.6 54.2 

E Total reductions from approved measures 

(Tables D-5, D-11) 32.4 53.6 

F 

Total reductions remaining as commitments 

(District and CARB) and, for NOx, reductions 

from new technologies (C-D-E) 

53.2 7.7 

G Reductions remaining as CARB enforceable 

commitments1 4.6 5.9 

Reductions remaining as District enforceable 

commitments 0 1.8 

H Total reductions remaining as new technology 

reductions (CAA section 182(e)(5)) (F-G) 48.6 -- 

I 

% of total reductions needed remaining as 

commitments not including NOx, reductions 

from new technologies 

1.1% 6.7% 

1

 Calculated by subtracting from CARB’s 2023 46 tpd NOx commitments (Table D-6) the adjustment to baseline 

from State & federal sources on Table D-8 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from creditable State measures on 

Table D-10 (19.8 tpd). District has no NOx emissions reductions remaining as commitments. See Table D-5. 

 54 SJVAPCD, 2011 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report, Draft March 2011. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 standard in the San Joaquin Valley, the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State 

Strategy included an ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules, 

which both the District and CARB have substantially met. Given that almost all the emissions 

reductions committed to by District and CARB have already been achieved and the rules to 

achieve the few remaining ones are schedule for adoption by 2013, EPA considers these 

schedules to provide sufficient time to achieve the few remaining reductions needed to attain 

(when considered with the emissions reductions provided by the advanced technology provision) 

by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2024. See Table F-4 above. Thus we find that the 

commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate timeframe. 

b. Attainment Demonstration 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings: 

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 approve the revised emissions inventories and to find the air quality modeling adequate to 

support the attainment demonstration. 

Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the 

implementation of all RACM. As discussed above in section II.C., we are proposing to approve 

the RACM demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(1). 

Third, we must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are 

creditable and are sufficient to provide for attainment. As shown on Table F-4., the 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP relies principally on adopted and approved/waived rules to achieve the emissions 

reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV by June 15, 2024. The 

balance of the reductions projected to be needed for attainment is currently in the form of 

enforceable commitments to adopt measures to achieve aggregate tonnage reductions of VOC or 

NOx in the near term from available and identified technologies and commitments to adopt and 

submit in the longer term measures relying on the development and deployment of new 

technologies that will achieve specific aggregate tonnage reductions of NOx. 

EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control 

measures in attainment demonstrations when circumstances warranted them and the 

commitments meet three criteria. As discussed in above, we proposed to find 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 

approve the enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 

8-Hour Ozone SIP. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 93
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

CAA section 182(e)(5) allows extreme ozone nonattainment area plans under certain 

conditions to include provisions for the development of new technologies and allows EPA to 

approve attainment demonstrations based, in part, on those provisions. For the reasons discussed 

in section II.E., we are proposing to find that California has met the conditions for relying on 

new technology provisions in its attainment demonstration for the SJV. 

As discussed above in section IV.C.2. above, the SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as 

adopted in 2007, demonstrates that a 75 percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 2002 base 

year level is necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Since the adoption of the SJV 

ozone SIP in 2007, the base year NOx emissions level has be revised downward by 12 percent 

due to new inventory methodologies and data. Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal 

approach for evaluating the impact of these base year inventory changes on the attainment target 

in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan would be to perform new air quality modeling, but both also 

recognize the time and effort involved in such modeling. CARB has committed to update the 

SJV 2007 Ozone Plan modeling to reflect the emissions inventory improvements and any other 

new information by December 31, 2014 or by the date the SIPs are due for the revised 8-hour 

ozone standard whichever comes first. See CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, p. B-8. EPA is proposing to approve this commitment. 

EPA believes that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NOx emissions level from 

the existing modeling provides the best currently available estimate of the NOx reductions 

needed to reach attainment. CARB has committed to, and has reaffirmed its commitment to 

achieve the reductions needed for attainment in the SJV. See CARB Resolution 07-28 

(September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 13, and CARB 

Resolution 11-22, p. 3. It has also stated that these commitments are sufficient to address the 

attainment needs of the SJV. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1. As discussed 

above, CARB’s commitment to achieving 81 tpd of NOx emissions reductions from new 

technologies is sufficient to cover any reductions that may be needed for attainment due to the 

changes to the base year inventory. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to approve the attainment demonstration in 

the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 94
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 95

G. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas 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 [title 1, part D] or may reasonably be 

required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [standard] 

by the applicable date.” 

CAA section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or higher demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC 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 the SIPs demonstrate a three percent per year reduction 

(averaged over three-year periods) of ozone precursor emissions from 1997 until attainment. 

CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) prohibits states from including emissions reductions from pre-1990 

federal motor vehicle control programs in their RFP.55

The ozone implementation rule interprets the RFP requirements for the purposes of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. It 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 standard that covers the entire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR § 

51.910(d) and 70 FR 71612. SJV has a fully-approved 182(b)(1) plan for the 1-hour ozone 

standard that covers the current 1997 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment area. See 62 FR 

1150, 1172 (January 8, 1997). 

For areas with fully-approved 182(b)(1) plans for the 1-hour ozone standard that cover 

the current 1997 8-hour 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 applicable attainment date. 40 CFR § 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as specifically provided 

in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions reductions from all SIP-approved, federally 

promulgated, or otherwise SIP-creditable measures that occur after the base year are creditable 

for purposes of demonstrating that the RFP targets are met. The implementation rule also sets the 

base year for RFP calculations as 2002. 40 CFR 51.910(d).56

The RFP demonstration must calculate and exclude the non-creditable reductions from 

the federal motor vehicle control program as described in CAA section 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. See 70 FR 71612 at 71696. 

 55 CAA 182(b)(1)(D) also prohibits inclusion of emissions reductions from certain other measures (e.g., 

RACT corrections), but these restrictions are of a historic nature and are not applicable to this action. 

56 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 96

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

California has made several submittals to address the RFP requirement for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard in the SJV. These submittals are: 

1. Chapter 10 in the 2007 Ozone Plan (adopted April 30, 2007) 

2. Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy (adopted September 27, 2007) 

3. Enclosure B to the Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 1, 2008 

4. Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions (adopted July 21, 2011). 

For this proposal, we are reviewing the revised RFP demonstration contained in 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions. This revised demonstration incorporates the inventory revisions described 

in section II.A.2. of this TSD as well as reductions from measures that have been adopted since 

the 2007 Ozone Plan’s submittal.57 See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 2. The revised RFP 

demonstration is shown in Table G-1 below. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

CARB calculated the RFP target levels following the method provided in the ozone 

implementation rule and preamble. See 40 CFR 51.910 and 70 FR 71612 at 71631-71650. The 

table provided in the SIP (reproduced in Table G-1 below) follows CARB’s standard format for 

presenting RFP demonstrations. 

In Table G-2 below, we have modified CARB’s table to make the calculations easier to 

follow and to remove reductions from several currently uncreditable District and state rules from 

the RFP calculations. 58 We have also removed the contingency reserve. 59 We discuss 

contingency measures in section II.J. Table G-3 gives a description of each line in Table G-2. 

As shown in Table G-2, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in each 

milestone year. EPA, therefore, proposes to approve the RFP demonstration. 

 

 57 CARB refers to the inventories that incorporate the revised emissions estimates and control measure 

reductions as “remaining emissions.” See for example, 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-3. 

58 Table G-2 accurately shows that the pre-1990 MVCP non-creditable reductions become smaller over 

time. The CARB table, reproduced in Table G-1 implies the opposite. 

59 CARB reserves 3 percent of the adjusted baseline to serve as contingency measures in the milestone 

years of 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 as well as 3 percent in the attainment year of 2023. In CARB’s calculations, the 

3 percent reserve is included once, in 2008, and then carried forward as part of the sum “Change since 2002 used for 

ROG substitution in this milestone year, percent” thereby providing a 3 percent reserve in each milestone year. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE G-1 

Revised RFP Demonstration 

(tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

Line ROG 

A Baseline 457.5 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0 

B MVCP adjustment 0.0 12.4 17.8 22.4 25.4 26.4 26.5 

C RACT correction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

D Adjusted baseline in 

milestone year 457.5 445.1 439.7 435.0 432.0 431.0 431.0 

E 

RFP commitment for 

reductions from new 

measures 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

F Future year with existing 

measures — 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0 

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 — 365.0 327.2 293.5 264.4 239.7 218.1 

J Apparent shortfall — 42.6 26.9 37.5 64.5 90.9 121 

K Apparent shortfall, percent — 9.6% 6.1% 8.6% 14.9% 21.1% 28.1% 

L 

Shortfall previous 

provided by substitution, 

percent 

— 0.0% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 14.9% 21.1% 

M Actual shortfall, percent — 9.6% -3.4% -0.9% 5.4% 6.1% 7.0% 

NOx

N Baseline 565.2 425.4 359.0 307.4 258.8 224.9 194.6 

O MVCP adjustment 0.0 16.8 21.2 24.8 26.9 27.8 28.2 

P Adjusted 2002 baseline in 

milestone year 565.2 548.5 544.1 540.4 538.4 537.4 537.1 

Q 

RFP commitment for 

reductions from new 

measures 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

R Change since 2002 — 123.10 185.1 233.0 279.5 312.5 342.5 

S Change since 2002 

percent — 22.4% 34.0% 43.1% 51.9% 58.1% 63.8% 

EPA- Region 9 Page 97
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 98

TABLE G-1 

Revised RFP Demonstration 

(tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

T 

Reductions since 2002 

already used for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency through last 

milestone, percent 

— 0.0% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 17.9% 24.1% 

U 

Reductions since 2002 

available for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in milestone 

year, percent 

— 22.4% 21.4% 30.6% 39.4% 40.2% 39.7% 

V 

Change since 2002 used 

for ROG substitution in 

this milestone year, 

percent 

— 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 6.1% 7.0% 

W 

Change since 2002 

available for contingency 

in this milestone year, 

percent 

— 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, percent 

— 9.9% 21.4% 30.6% 34.0% 34.1% 32.7% 

RFP met? — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Contingency met? — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, Table A-1 (San Joaquin Valley), p. A-30 

 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE G-2 

Revised RFP Demonstration with Uncreditable Reductions Removed 

No Contingency Measure Reserve 

(tons per summer day)

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

VOC 

A Baseline 457.5 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0 

B1 Currently uncreditable 

reductions from Rule 9410 — — — 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 

B2 

Currently uncreditable 

reductions from DPR’s 

pesticides element 

— 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 

B3 Currently uncreditable 

reductions from Rule 4653 — 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 

C Baseline with uncreditable 

reductions removed 457.5 408.8 355.9 333.5 331.0 333.0 341.5 

D MVCP adjustment 0.0 12.4 5.4 4.6 3.0 1.0 0.1 

E Adjusted baseline in the 

milestone year 457.5 445.1 439.7 435.1 432.1 431.1 431.0 

F Basis for required RFP 

reductions — 445.1 359.6 322.6 290.6 263.4 239.6 

G 

Required percent change 

since previous milestone 

year 

— 18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 

H Target level — 365.0 327.2 293.6 264.4 239.7 218.1 

I Apparent shortfall — 43.8 28.7 39.9 66.6 93.3 123.4 

J Percent apparent shortfall 

in VOC, percent — 9.8% 6.5% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6% 28.6% 

K Percent shortfall previous 

provided by substitution — 0.0% 9.8% 9.6% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6% 

L Percent actual shortfall — 9.8% -3.3% -0.4% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0% 

NOx

M Baseline 565.2 425.4 359.0 307.4 258.8 224.9 194.6 

N Uncreditable reductions 

from Rule 4320 — 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.5 

O Uncreditable reductions 

from Rule 9410 — — — 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4 

P Baseline with uncreditable 

reductions removed 565.2 425.5 359.6 309.0 260.3 226.5 196.5 

Q MVCP adjustment 0 16.8 4.4 3.6 2.1 0.9 0.4 

R Adjusted baseline in the 

milestone year 565.2 548.4 544.0 540.4 538.3 537.4 537.0 

EPA- Region 9 Page 99
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 100

TABLE G-2 

Revised RFP Demonstration with Uncreditable Reductions Removed 

No Contingency Measure Reserve 

(tons per summer day)

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

S Change since 2002 0.0 122.9 184.4 213.4 278.0 310.8 537.0 

T Percent Change since 2002 0.0 22.4% 33.9% 42.8% 51.5% 57.8% 63.4% 

U 

Percent reductions since 

2002 already used for RFP 

substitution through last 

milestone 

— 0% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 16.1% 22.3% 

V 

Percent reductions since 

2002 available for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in the 

milestone year 

— 22.4% 24.1% 33.0% 41.8% 41.8% 41.1% 

X 

Percent change since 2002 

used for VOC substitution 

in the milestone year, 

percent 

— 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0% 

Y 

Percent change since 2002 

surplus after meeting 

substitution in the 

milestone year 

— 12.6% 24.1% 33.0% 35.6% 35.5% 34.1% 

RFP met? — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

TABLE G-3 

Description of the Lines in the RFP Demonstration Calculation in Table G-2 

Line 

A (VOC) Baseline 

The total summer season daily VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley 

in the current milestone year (MSY). Total includes benefits from control 

measures adopted prior to the submittal of the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone 

SIP as well as control strategy measures adopted prior to submittal of the 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. It does not include reductions from SJV Rule 

9510. 

B (1-

3). 

Currently uncreditable 

reductions from DPR’s 

pesticide element and 

Rules 9410 and 9456. 

Reductions for the current MSY from District Rules 9410 and 9456 and 

CA DPR pesticide element are included in the Baseline. EPA has not yet 

proposed approved these rules into the SIP and therefore they are not 

currently creditable in the RFP demonstration. 

C Baseline with uncreditable 

reductions removed 

The current MSY’s Baseline (line A) with the current MSY’s 

Uncreditable reductions (lines B1-3) removed. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 101

TABLE G-3 

Description of the Lines in the RFP Demonstration Calculation in Table G-2 

Line 

D MVCP Adjustment 

The reductions from the pre-1990 MVCP for on-road vehicles that must 

be excluded in the RFP demonstration per CAA section 182(b)(1)(D). 

These numbers are calculated using the EMFAC2007 according to a 

method described in Appendix A of the preamble to the ozone 

implementation rule (70 FR 71696). Values on Table G-2 for this row are 

the difference between the current MSY’s adjustment (line B from Table 

G-1) and the previous MSY’s adjustment (line B from Table G-1). 

E Adjusted baseline 

Calculated as the previous MSY’s adjusted baseline (line E) minus the 

current MSY’s MVCP (line D). Except for 2008, this value is used in the 

calculation of the Apparent shortfall (line I). 

F Basis for reductions 

This number is reduced by the Required percent change since previous 

MSY (line G) to calculate the Target VOC level (line H). In the 2008 

MSY, it is the same as the Adjusted baseline (line E). In subsequent 

MSYs, it is equal to the previous MSY’s Target VOC level (line H) minus 

the current MSY’s MVCP adjustment (line D). 

G 

Required percent change 

since previous milestone 

year 

40 CFR § 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B) requires a 18 percent reduction between 

2002 base year and first MSY of 2008 and 9 percent between each 

subsequent MSY. 

H Target VOC level 

Level to which VOC emissions in the nonattainment area must be reduced 

to meet the RFP requirement. The target is calculated as MSY’s Basis for 

reductions (line F) reduced by the Required percentage (line G). 

I Apparent shortfall The current MSY’s Target VOC level (line H) minus the MSY’s Adjusted 

baseline (line E). 

J Percent apparent shortfall 

in VOC, percent 

The percentage shortfall calculated by dividing the MSY’s Apparent 

shortfall (line I) by the current MSY’s Adjusted baseline (line D). 

K Percent shortfall previously 

provided by substitution 

The percentage of the VOC shortfall addressed by NOx substitution in 

previous MSY. This must be accounted for in subsequent MSY to prevent 

double-counting reductions. 

L Percent actual shortfall 

The shortfall that must be addressed by NOx substitution in the current 

MSY in order to demonstrate RFP. Calculated as the current MSY’s 

Percent apparent shortfall in VOC (line J) minus the current MSY’s 

Percent shortfall previously provided by substitution (line K). 

M NOx Baseline 

The total summer season daily NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley 

in the current MSY. Total includes benefits from control measures 

adopted prior to the submittal of the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP as well 

as control strategy measures adopted prior to submittal of the 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions. It does not include reductions from SJV Rule 9510. 

N & 

O 

Uncreditable reductions 

from Rule 9410 and 4320 

Reductions for the current MSY from District Rules 9410 and 4320 are 

included in the Baseline. EPA has not yet approved Rule 9410 into the SIP 

and has determined that reductions from Rule 4320 are not currently 

creditable. 

P Baseline with uncreditable 

reductions removed 

The current MSY’s Baseline (line M) with the current MSY’s 

Uncreditable reductions (lines N and O) removed. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 102

TABLE G-3 

Description of the Lines in the RFP Demonstration Calculation in Table G-2 

Line 

Q MVCP Adjustment 

The reductions from the pre-1990 MVCP limit for on-road vehicles that 

must be excluded in the RFP demonstration per CAA section 

182(b)(1)(D). These numbers are calculated using the EMFAC2007 

according to a method described in Appendix A of the preamble to the 

ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71696). Values on Table G-2 for this 

row are the difference between the current MSY’s adjustment (line O on 

Table G-1) and the previous MSYs adjustment (line O on Table G-1). 

R Adjusted NOx Baseline 

Baseline emissions with the uncreditable and non-creditable reductions 

removed. Used in the calculation of the Percent change since 2002 (line 

T). Calculated as the previous MSY’s adjusted baseline (line R) minus the 

current MSY’s MVCP (line Q). 

S Change in NOx since 2002 Calculated as 2002 Baseline with uncreditable reductions removed (line P 

for 2002) minus current MSY’s Adjusted NOx baseline (line R). 

T Percent change in NOx

since 2002 

Percentage change in NOx emissions since 2002. Calculated as the current 

MSY’s Change in NOx since 2002 (line S) divided by the current MSY’s 

adjusted NOx baseline (line R). 

U 

Percent NOx reductions 

since 2002 already used for 

RFP substitution through 

last milestone year 

The cumulative NOx reductions used for VOC substitution. The NOx

reductions that have previously been used for substitution are no longer 

available for substitution. Calculated as the sum of the previous MSY’s 

Percent change in NOx since 2002 used for VOC substitution (line U) and 

the previous MSY’s Change in NOx since 2002 used for VOC substitution 

in the milestone year (line V) 

V 

Percent NOx reductions 

since 2002 available for 

RFP substitution in 

milestone year 

Remaining NOx reductions that are available for VOC substitution. 

Calculated as the current MSY’s Percent change in NOx since 2002 (line 

T) minus the current MSY Percent NOx reductions since 2002 already 

used for RFP substitution and contingency through the last milestone year 

(line U). 

X 

Percent change in NOx

since 2002 used for VOC 

substitution in this 

milestone year 

Equal to the current MSY’s Percent actual (VOC) shortfall (line L) unless 

line L is less than 0, then it is equal to 0. 

Y 

Percent change since 2002 

surplus after meeting 

substitution in this 

milestone year 

This is the surplus NOx reduction available this milestone year after 

providing the cumulative VOC substitutions. Calculated as the current 

MSY’s Percent NOx reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution 

(line V) minus the current MSY’s Percent change in NOx since 2002 used 

for VOC substitution in this milestone year (line X). If this number is 

greater than zero, the RFP requirements have been met for this milestone 

year. 

 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 103

H. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures 

to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP 

and Attainment 

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and TCM to Offset Emissions 

Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as severe or extreme submit 

transportation control strategies and transportation control measures (TCM) 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. 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.” 

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 standard) as separable. EPA has historically 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. General Preamble at 13522.60

2. Transportation Control Strategies and TCM to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT 

Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

Information in 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions reproduced in Table H-1 below shows that onroad mobile source emissions of VOC and NOx decline steadily from 2008 to 2023. This decline 

in emissions is due to EPA’s and California’s 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.D., these programs are fully creditable for SIP planning purposes in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations, including demonstrating compliance with CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). The onroad emissions in Table H-1 are calculated using EMFAC2007, the most recent EPA-approved 

mobile source emissions model for California. 

As described above in section II.C., the SJV MPOs evaluated a wide variety of 

transportation control measures, including those measures listed in CAA section 108(f), and 

determined that there were no combinations of reasonable measures that would expedite 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. See 2008 Ozone Plan, Appendix C. 

 60 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 104

Table H-1 

On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley 

2008-2023 

(tons per summer day)

Year 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

VOC 78 66 50 43 39 37 

NOx 229 183 153 115 91 69 

Source:2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, page. B-3.

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Because VOC and NOx emissions from on-road mobile sources decline steadily over the 

entire time period covered by the 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP,61 the SIP does not need to include 

additional transportation control strategies or TCM to offset growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT or vehicle trips; therefore, we propose to find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets 

the first provision of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). 

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 requirement to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or the number of vehicle trips, section 

182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requires States to adopt transportation control strategies and measures 

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. If the court denies the Agency’s 

petition for rehearing and issues its mandate before EPA issues a final rule on the San Joaquin 

Valley 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, then we anticipate that we would not be able to finalize approval 

of the SIP with respect to the first element of section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in the alternative 

to the proposed approval, we are proposing to disapprove the SJV 2007 8-Hour 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 measures to offset the 

emissions from growth in VMT. If EPA were to finalize the proposed disapproval, the area 

would be eligible for a protective finding under the transportation conformity rule because the 

 61 CARB only presented mobile source emissions for the RFP milestone years rather than for each year 

between 2011 and 2023. We believe this adequately meets the CAA section 182(d)(3) requirement. There is nothing 

to indicate that mobile sources emissions in the SJV are likely to increase between milestone years before returning 

to their historic downward trend in the milestone years. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 105

submitted SIP contains adopted control measures and enforceable commitments that fully satisfy 

the emissions reductions requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment. 40 CFR 

93.120(a)(3).62 

As discussed above in section II.G., we have proposed to find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone SIP provides for RFP consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory 

requirements; therefore, we also propose to find that the SIP meets the second provision of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A); that is, to include transportation control strategies and TCM as necessary to 

provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP 

requirement. 

In discussed in sections II.C. and II.F. above, we have determined that the SJV 2007 8-

Hour Ozone SIP provides for the implementation of all RACM, including all reasonably 

available transportation control measures, and provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard. Therefore, we propose to find that SIP meets the third provision of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A); that is, to include TCM to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment. 

 62 An area would not be eligible for a protective finding under the transportation conformity regulation if 

EPA finalizes a disapproval of a control strategy implementation plan revision (i.e., a plan that demonstrates 

reasonable further progress or attainment) because the plan revision does not contain adopted control measures or 

written commitments to enforceable control measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements 

relevant to the statutory provision for which the implementation plan revision was submitted. 40 CFR § 

93.120(a)(3). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 106

I. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers 

1. Requirement for the Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers

CAA section 182(e)(3) requires that plans for areas classified as extreme must require 

each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler that emits 

more than 25 tpy of NOx to burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a 

comparably low polluting fuel), or use advanced control technology (such as catalytic control 

technology or other comparably effective control methods). These requirements must be 

submitted 3 years and be effective 8 years after November 15, 1990.63

Further guidance on this requirement is provided in the General Preamble at 13523. 

According to the General Preamble, boilers should generally be considered as any combustion 

equipment used to produce steam and would generally 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. 

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 NOx, 

emissions below 25 tons per year from each boiler. In addition, boilers with rated heat inputs less 

that 15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which are oil- or gas-fired may generally be considered 

not subject to these requirements since it is unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy NOx

emission limit. General Preamble at 13524. 

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. 

2. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers Requirements in the SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan

The 2007 Ozone Plan addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements on page 2-9 and 

concludes that existing District boiler rules meet this CAA requirement: 

District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOx emission limits for the boilers in 

this category. Most of the boilers under Rules 4305 and 4306 are fired on natural 

gas and therefore satisfy the requirement of paragraph (A) above. Liquid-fuel 

fired boilers are also addressed by those rules and the applicable NOx emission 

 63 Consistent with provisions in the 8-hour ozone implementation rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we 

interpret this 3- and 8-year timeframes to run from the effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, that is, from June 15, 2004. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 107

limits satisfy the requirement of paragraph (B) above. Solid-fuel fired boilers are 

addressed by Rule 4352 and the applicable NOx emission limits satisfy the 

requirement of paragraph (B) above. 

Therefore, the District already complies with this requirement and there is no 

need to include additional control measures in this plan to satisfy the section of 

the federal Clean Air Act. 

2007 Ozone Plan, p. 2-7. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusion

SJVAPCD has adopted 6 rules that control NOx emissions from boilers that are 

potentially subject to the requirements in CAA section 182(e)(3).64

Rule 4305 “Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – Phase 2” as revised on 

August 21, 2003 was approved by EPA on May 18, 2004 (69 FR 28061). It applied to any 

gaseous fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat 

input greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The requirements in the rule have now been 

superseded by those in Rule 4306. 

Rule 4306 “Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – Phase 3” as revised on 

October 16, 2008, applies to any gaseous fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boiler, steam generator, or 

process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The NOx emission 

limits in the rule, which range from 5 ppm to 30 ppm for gaseous fuels and is 40 ppm for liquid 

fuels, cannot be achieved without the use of advance control technologies. See “Alternative 

Control Techniques Document--NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) 

Boilers,” Emissions Standards Division, EPA, March 1994 (“1994 ACT”). We approved Rule 

4306 (revised October 16, 2008) as a SIP revision on January 13, 2010 at 75 FR 1715. All units 

subject to Rule 4306 were required to comply with the limits in the rule no later than December 

1, 2008. See Rule 4306, section 7.0. 

Rule 4320 “Advanced Emission Reduction Option for Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters Greater than 5 MMBtu/hr” adopted October 15, 2008 imposes more stringent 

limits than Rule 4306; however, sources subject Rule 4320 may opt to pay an annual fee in lieu 

of meeting these limits. Source which opt to pay the annual fee under Rule 4320 are still subject 

to RACT requirements (Section 5.3.3). EPA approved Rule 4320 into the SIP on March 25, 2011 

at 76 FR 16696. 

Rule 4307 “Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – 2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 

MMBtu/hr,” as revised on October 16, 2008, applies to any gaseous fuel- or liquid fuel-fired 

boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 2.0 MMBtu 

 64 We have previously found that the District’s boiler rules, in combination with the its new source review 

permitting program, ensure that all existing boilers that emit 25 tpy or more of NOx or any new or modified boilers 

that have the potential to emit 25 tpy of NOx meet the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3). See 75 FR 10420, 

10434 (March 8, 2010), approval of the SJV 2004 Extreme Area 1-hour Ozone Plan. See also 74 FR 33933, 33945 

(July 14, 2009), proposed approve of the SJV 2004 Ozone Plan. We have also found that boilers subject to the 

District’s Rule 4352 “Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators And Process Heaters,” as revised May 18, 2006 

also meet the requirements of this section of the CAA. See 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010) 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

per hour but less than 5.0 MMBtu per hour. EPA approve Rule 4307 (revised October 16, 2008) 

as a SIP revisions (and as meeting CAA section 182(b)(1) RACT) into the SIP on January 13, 

2010 at 75 FR 1715. On May 19, 2011, the District slightly modified this rule to provide relief 

for one almond pasteurizer; however, the source is required to fire its boiler exclusively on PUC 

quality natural gas. See Rule 4307 (amended May 19, 2011), section 5.1.2. See also, SJVAPCD, 

“Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4307 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heater – 2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr),” April 21, 2011 

Rule 4308 “Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters – 0.075 MMBtu/hr to 2.0 

MMBtu/hr,” as revised on December 17, 2009, applies to any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired 

boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 0.075 MMBtu 

per hour but less than 2.0 MMBtu per hour. EPA approve Rule 4308 (revised December 17, 

2009) as a SIP revisions (and as meeting CAA section 182(b)(1) RACT) into the SIP on January 

31, 2011 at 76 FR 5276. 

Boiler subject to Rules 4307 and 4308 are too small to have the potential to emit 25 tpy 

or more of NOx. An uncontrolled 5.0 MMBtu gas- or liquid-fuel boiler would need to emit at a 

rate of 1.14 lbs of NOx per MMBtu burned to emit 25 tpy of NOx (25 tpy x 2000 lb/ton divided 

by 365 days per year x 24 hours per day x 5 MMBTU/hr). According to Table 4-7 in the 1994 

ACT, uncontrolled NOx emissions rates for gas and liquid fuel boilers range from 0.06 

lb/MMBtu to 0.79 MMBtu. 

Rule 4352 “Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators And Process Heaters,” as revised 

May 18, 2006, applies to any boiler, steam generator or process heater fired on solid fuel at a 

source that has a potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of NOx or VOC. We approved Rule 

4352 into the California SIP on October 1, 2010. In that action, we determined that the District 

had failed to demonstrate that the rule provided for the implementation of RACT as required by 

CAA section 182(b)(2); however, we also determined that rule’s emissions limits were 

sufficiently stringent to necessitate the use of the advanced technologies required by CAA 

section 182(e)(3). All units subject to Rule 4352 were required to comply with the Rule’s limits 

no later than January 1, 2007. Rule 4352, section 7.0. 

All of the NOx emission limits in the revised rule effectively require operation of 

Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) control systems. We believe SNCR is “comparably 

effective” to SCR for the affected sources as discussed below, and thus fulfills section 182(e)(3) 

requirements for these affected sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NOx emission reductions 

comparable to combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers. 

According to information in the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, recent Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits contain emission limits for coal-fired boilers ranging 

from 0.067 lbs/MMBtu (for large coal-fired boilers with SCR and low-NOx burner technology) 

to 0.1 lbs/MMBtu (for medium-sized coal-fired boilers with SNCR). These limits reflect Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations under the PSD program. According to the 

1994 ACT for ICI boilers (Tables 2-6), wood-fired watertube boilers with SCR can achieve NOx

emissions of 0.22 lb/MMBtu. The 1994 ACT does not contain emissions levels for wood-fired 

FBC boilers with SCR but states that this type of unit with SNCR can achieve NOx emission 

limits ranging from 0.03 to 0.20 lb/MMBtu. Additionally, a permitted biomass facility in CA that 

operates a low temperature SCR has a similar emission limit in its permit as biomass facilities 

with SNCR (approximately 0.1 lbs/MMBtu). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 108
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

Our review of these emission ranges indicates that although emission rates can vary 

according to fuel type and boiler size, generally SNCR controls are comparably effective to SCR 

for boilers firing wood (biomass), MSW, and many other types of solid fuels. As a general 

matter, SNCR is also comparably effective to SCR control for circulating fluidized bed coal-fired 

boilers of less than 50 MW electric generation capacity. For coal-fired boilers, we focused our 

review on circulating fluidized bed boilers of less than 50 MW generation capacity because all 

existing coal-fired boilers in SJV are of this type and below this size. The emission levels 

achieved by SNCR control systems are also generally comparable to the uncontrolled NOx

emissions from boilers firing clean fuels such as natural gas, which may range from 0.07 to 0.45 

lb/MMBtu. 1994 ACT, Table 2.2. SNCR control systems consistently achieve up to 80 percent 

NOx emission reductions and are compatible with almost all solid fuel-fired boiler operations, 

while other controls may in some cases be sensitive to catalyst poisoning and other technical 

constraints. As to boilers that emit above 25 tpy of NOx, we note as a practical matter that only 

existing boilers in SJV are likely to be constrained by the NOx emission limits in Rule 4352, as 

all new boilers that potentially emit above 25 tpy and all major modifications at existing boilers 

will also be subject to the more stringent control technology requirements of the Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) or PSD permit programs. The requirements of Rule 4352 are 

generally applicable to this source category and do not supplant any more stringent control 

requirements that apply on a case-by-case basis under the NNSR or PSD permit programs. See 

75 FR 60623. 

New and modified boilers that will emit or have the potential to emit 25 tpy or more of 

NOx are subject to the District’s new source permitting rule (Rule 2201 “New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review”). This rule requires new and modified source to install and operate 

best available control technology/lowest achievable emissions reductions technology. EPA 

approved Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010). 

Based on our review of the emission limitations in SJVAPCD’s rules and the applicable 

compliance deadlines, we propose to find that the SJV Ozone SIP meets the requires of CAA 

section 182(e)(3). 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 109
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 110

J. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

All 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as moderate or above 

must include in their SIPs contingency measures consistent with CAA 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 its attainment date. These contingency 

measures must be fully adopted rules or measures which are ready for implementation quickly 

upon failure to meet 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 EPA See 68 FR 32802, 

32837 and 70 FR 71612, 71650. Contingency measures should submitted along with the 

attainment demonstration which was due by June 15, 2007 for areas designated in 2004. See 70 

FR 71612, 71651. 

Additional guidance on the CAA contingency measure provisions is found in the General 

Preamble at 13510–13512 and 13520. The guidance indicates that states should adopt and submit 

contingency measures sufficient to provide a 3 percent emissions reduction from the adjusted 

RFP base year. EPA concludes this level of emissions reductions 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 or RFP requirement. 

States may use reductions in either of VOC and NOx to meet the contingency measure 

requirement. General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. States may also use a combination of VOC 

and NOx reductions. 

EPA has also provided guidance that contingency measures could be implemented early, 

i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date.65 Consistent 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 requirements. 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 continued progress while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet the 

required milestone or to attain. 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) (approval of the Indiana portion of the Chicago area 15 percent 

rate of progress (ROP) plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (approval of the Illinois portion 

of the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed approval of 

the Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) 

(approval of the Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations). 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 emissions 

reductions beyond those needed for attainment or RFP as contingency measures. EPA has 

approved the use of federal measures as part of contingency measures in several actions on 1-

 65 Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors, 

“Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” June 1, 1992. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

hour ozone SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997), 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), 66 FR 

30811 (June 8, 2001), 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001), 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. See CAA 182(e)(5). See TSD, 

section II.E. Such plan 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 proposed implementation of the plan provisions and approved or 

disapproved by EPA in accordance with CAA section 110. 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The contingency measure provision is described in Section 11.6. of the 2007 Ozone Plan 

and Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy as updated on February 1, 2008. California revised its 

contingency measure provisions in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A. 

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-3. 

See also Table J-1 below and Table G-2 in this TSD. 

To provide in part for contingency measures for failure to attain, the SIP relies in part on 

additional incremental emissions reductions resulting from fleet turnover in the 2024. For SJV, 

these values are 2 tpd NOx and less than 0.5 tpd VOC. See 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 long-term measures approved 

pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. See CARB Resolution No. 11-

22 (July 21, 2011). 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Contingency measures for failure to make RFP - As discussed above in section II.G., we are 

proposing to approve the RFP demonstration. As seen in Table J-1, there are sufficient excess 

reductions of NOx in each milestone year to provide the 3 percent of adjusted baseline emissions 

reductions needed to meet the RFP contingency measure requirement. 

No RFP contingency measures are needed for 2008, since the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

demonstrate that SJV has already met its 2008 milestone. See Table 11 above. As a result, 

contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP benchmark will never be triggered and 

thus are not needed. 

Contingency measures for failure to attain – The incremental additional emissions 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 

EPA- Region 9 Page 111
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 112

requirement for failure to attain. For the SJV, these reductions are 2 tpd of NOx and less than 0.5 

tpd of VOC. 

Based on our proposal to determine that the State has satisfied the criteria in section 

182(e)(5) for reliance on the new technologies as part of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, we propose 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). These contingency 

measures would be in addition to the contingency measures required should anticipated new 

technologies approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions.66 CARB 

Resolution No. 11-22 (July 21, 2011). 

Accordingly, we propose to approve the RFP and attainment contingency measures in the 

SJV 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. 

 

 66 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

TABLE J-1 

Excess NOx Reductions in RFP Demonstration 

Available for Use as Contingency Measures 

SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011 

(tons per summer day) 

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 

NOx adjusted base year 565.2 565.2 565.2 565.2 565.2 

Contingency requirement 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 

Percent change in NO 

emissions since 2002 surplus 

after meeting VOC 

substitution in the MCY (line 

Y from Table G-2) 

24.1% 33.0% 35.6% 35.5% 34.1% 

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 113
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

K. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

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 that involve Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the 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 the SIP. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP 

should establish budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP year or last year of the 

maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone attainment and RFP plans should establish budgets for 

NOx and VOC. See 40 CFR § 93.102(b)(2)(i). 

Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted 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 approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP 

requirements. To meet these requirements, the budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR § 

93.118(e)(4)(v). 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 2007 included budgets for VOC and NOx for the 

attainment year of 2023 and the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 

Ozone Plan, Section 9.2.3 and Appendix C and CARB Staff Report, Appendix D (updating 

MVEB for Madera and San Joaquin Counties). 

CARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley and their documentation in 

Appendices A and C, respectively, of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. See Tables K-1 and K-2 

below. The updated MVEB are for NOx and VOC for the RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017 and 

2020 the attainment year of 2023. No budgets were included for the RFP year of 2008 because it 

is no longer applicable as a conformity analysis year. CARB provided additional information in 

the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions supplement and in emails from Douglas Ito, CARB, to Elizabeth 

Adams, EPA, on August 9 and 11, 2011. Table K-2 below shows how the updated MVEBs were 

EPA- Region 9 Page 114
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

calculated. This calculation is described in the Appendix C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. 

The baseline inventories are the initial SIP on-road mobile source inventories in the Appendix C 

of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan as submitted in November 2007. They continue to be based on same 

planning assumptions that were used in the initial 2007 Ozone Plan. 

The MVEBs are calculated by taking these baseline inventories subtracting reductions 

from certain pre-Plan measures (“existing measures”) and reductions from measures adopted 

after the Plan was adopted as well as measures and other inventory adjustments included in 

CARB’s New Heavy Duty Diesel Truck (HDDT) Model (collectively “new measures”). The 

final MVEB is this resulting total rounded to the next highest tenth of a ton. 

Existing measures are: 

• AB 1493 Green House Gas Standards (NOx and VOC) 

• On-Road Portion of the Carl Moyer Program (NOx and VOC) 

• SJVAPCD’s Rule 9310 – School Buses (NOx only) 

New measures are: 

• SJVAPCD Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction (NOx and VOC) 

• 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) 

• New HDDT inventory 

• HDDT Recession Impacts 

• HDDT In-Use Rule 

• Heavy Duty Diesel Truck (HDDT) Chip Reflash 

• HDDT Public Fleet and Solid Waste Rules 

• HDDT Idling Rules 

3. January 8, 2009 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 

On January 8, 2009, we notified CARB that we had found the budgets in the 2007 Ozone 

Plan for the RFP milestone years 2011, 2014, and 2017 adequate and the MVEBs for the RFP 

milestone years 2008 and 2020 and the attainment year of 2023 inadequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. See letter Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, 

“RE: Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and 

Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,” January 8, 2009. We published a notice of 

our findings at 74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009). This adequacy finding is also available at EPA’s 

transportation conformity website, www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm.

We found the budgets for 2011, 2014 and 2017 adequate for transportation conformity 

decisions because they were consistent with the State’s RFP demonstrations for milestone years 

2011, 2014, and 2017 and were based on control measures, with one minor exception, that have 

already been adopted and implemented. The budgets also meet the other adequacy criteria in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). These budgets are currently being used by the MPOs and DOT in 

EPA- Region 9 Page 115
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

transportation conformity determinations. EPA’s proposed approval of the revised budgets 

submitted in August 2011 does not affects the adequacy status of these budgets. They remain 

adequate for transportation conformity purposes until EPA either finds replacement budgets 

adequate or a final action approving replacement budgets becomes effective. 

We found the RFP budgets for 2008 inadequate for transportation conformity purposes 

the 2007 Ozone Plan did not show RFP for the year 2008 and thus the budget did not meet the 

transportation conformity rule’s adequacy criteria that the budgets when considered together 

with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP (40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(iv)). 

We found the 2020 and 2023 budgets inadequate because they included estimated 

emission reductions associated with a number of commitments for future rule adoption that lack 

specificity. As such, the SJV MPOs would not have been able to accurately quantify future 

emission reductions associated with the commitments. Therefore, the 2020 and 2023 budgets 

were not precisely quantified or related to the overall emissions inventory and other measures as 

required by the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v). 

4. Proposed Action on the Revised MVEBs

As part of its review of the budgets’ approvability, EPA has evaluated the revised 

budgets using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318(e)(4) and (5). As documented in Table 

K-3 below, we found that they meet each adequacy criterion. As documented in this TSD, we 

have completed our detailed review of the 2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP and supplemental 

submittals including the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and are proposing to approve the SIP’s 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. We have also reviewed the proposed MVEBs submitted 

with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and have found that they are consistent with the attainment 

and RFP 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 §93.118(e)(4) and(5). Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 MVEB as shown in Table K-1. 

EPA is not required under its Transportation Conformity rules to find budgets adequate 

prior to proposing approval of them. However, we will complete the adequacy review of these 

budgets either prior to or concurrently with our final action on SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. We 

will also post the revised budgets on EPA’s adequacy review web page. 

If the proposed approval of the budgets is finalized, then the SJV MPOs and the U.S. 

DOT will be 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 tenth of a ton (e.g. 0.1 tpd). Also note that due to the nature of these budgets 

(combining reductions from control measures related to the in-use truck and bus rule, some of 

which may be included CARB’s upcoming revision to the EMFAC model, 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 

EPA- Region 9 Page 116
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA- Region 9 Page 117

analysis per 40 CFR § 93.122 until EMAFAC2011 is submitted to EPA and EPA approves the 

model for use in SIPS and transportation conformity determinations. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

Table K-1 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

as Revised on July 21, 2011 

(tons per average summer day) 

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 

County ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx Fresno 14.3 36.2 10.7 30.0 9.3 22.6 8.3 17.7 Kern (SJV) 12.7 50.3 9.7 42.7 8.7 31.7 8.2 25.1 Kings 2.8 10.7 2.1 8.9 1.8 6.7 1.7 5.3 Madera 3.4 9.3 2.5 7.7 2.2 5.8 2.0 4.7 Merced 5.1 19.9 3.7 16.7 3.2 12.4 2.9 9.9 San Joaquin 11.1 24.6 8.4 20.5 7.2 15.6 6.4 12.4 Stanislaus 8.5 16.9 6.4 13.9 5.6 10.6 5.0 8.4 Tulare 8.8 16.0 6.7 13.2 5.8 10.1 5.3 8.1 

EPA-Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

Table K-2 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

as Revised on July 21, 2011 

(tons per average summer day) 

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 

County ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx Fresno 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 15.62 51.87 13.04 40.67 11.18 32.41 9.64. 25.94 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.11 

State Reductions 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.15 0.05 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.18 

State Reductions 1.20 15.51 2.10 10.30 1.68 9.42 1.15 7.96 

Total 14.27 36.17 10.64 29.95 9.29 22.57 8.21 17.69 

Budget 14.3 36.2 10.7 30.0 9.3 22.6 8.3 17.7 

Kern (SJV) 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 15.76 86.69 13.56 70.77 11.67 55.71 10.36 44.64 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.08 

State Reductions 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.10 0.04 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.13 

State Reductions 3.01 36.29 3.68 27.76 2.85 23.78 2.01 19.39 

Total 12.63 50.22 9.66 42.65 8.66 31.60 8.16 25.06 

Budget 12.7 50.3 9.7 42.7 8.7 31.7 8.2 25.1 

EPA-Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA-Region 9 

Table K-2 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

as Revised on July 21, 2011 

(tons per average summer day) 

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 

County ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx Kings 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 3.34 17.28 2.75 13.53 2.31 10.52 2.00 8.49 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 

State Reductions 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 

State Reductions 0.57 6.62 0.69 4.56 0.51 3.83 0.36 3.2 

Total 2.74 10.62 2.00 8.89 1.76 6.62 1.6 5.24 

Budget 2.8 10.7 2.1 8.9 1.8 6.7 1.7 5.3 

Madera 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 3.68 13.11 0.00 0.01 2.59 8.54 2.28 7.22 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 

State Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 

State Reductions 0.36 3.85 0.56 2.8 0.45 2.68 0.34 2.55 

Total 3.30 9.23 2.43 7.66 2.10 5.79 1.9 4.62 

Budget 3.4 9.3 2.5 7.7 2.2 5.8 2.0 4.7 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA-Region 9 

Table K-2 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

as Revised on July 21, 2011 

(tons per average summer day) 

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 

County ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx Merced 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 6.20 31.38 0.00 0.03 4.21 19.24 3.63 15.70 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 

State Reductions 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.06 

State Reductions 1.14 11.45 1.33 7.84 1.01 6.72 0.70 5.79 

Total 5.01 19.85 3.64 16.62 3.13 12.38 2.84 9.82 

Budget 5.1 19.9 3.7 16.7 3.2 12.4 2.9 9.9 

San Joaquin 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 12.13 37.28 3.04 10.53 8.64 23.57 7.49 18.57 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 

State Reductions 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.12 0.04 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.16 

State Reductions 0.95 12.57 1.63 9.31 1.27 7.70 0.89 5.94 

Total 11.06 24.56 8.31 20.42 7.18 15.51 6.36 12.38 

Budget 11.1 24.6 8.4 20.5 7.2 15.6 6.4 12.4 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA-Region 9 

Table K-2 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

as Revised on July 21, 2011 

(tons per average summer day) 

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 

County ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx 

Stanislaus 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 

9.00 24.06 0.00 0.01 6.5 14.76 5.7 11.86 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 

State Reductions 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.09 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.10 

State Reductions 0.46 7.15 1.02 4.6 0.81 4.01 0.58 3.34 

Total 8.45 16.81 6.34 13.86 5.56 10.51 4.96 8.35 

Budget 8.5 16.9 6.4 13.9 5.6 10.6 5.0 8.4 

Tulare 

Baseline 

EMFAC2007 

9.26 22.41 0.00 0.02 6.7 14.35 5.96 11.88 

Existing measures 

Local Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 

State Reductions 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 

New measures 

Local Reductions 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.09 

State Reductions 0.41 6.42 0.99 4.48 0.81 4.09 0.60 3.68 

Total 8.77 15.90 6.62 13.16 5.79 10.06 5.23 8.05 

Budget 8.8 16.0 6.7 13.2 5.8 10.1 5.3 8.1 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

Table K-3 

Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozon

as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria 

(40 CFR part 93) 

Is Criterion 

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments 

Sec. 3.118(e)(4)(i) 

The plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing. 

Y 

The November 16, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the SJV 2007 CARB’s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor’s desi

letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the plan on June 1Resolution (07-20). CARB released the plan on May 15, 2007 and comments by June 13, 2007 or at the public hearing held on June 1The Plan relies on reduction from measures and commitments in th

The November 16, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the 2007 StatCARB’s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor’s desiletter indicates that CARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy for the 2007. CARB released the 2007 State Strategy on April 26, 2007 anrequested public comments by the public hearing held on SeptembCARB updated both the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Ozone SIP Revisions. The July 29, 2011 transmittal letter submitti

Revisions was sent by CARB’s Executive Officer, James Goldstendesignee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally aon July 21, 2011 through a Board Resolution (11-22). CARB relea2011 and requested public comments by July 20, 2011 or at the pu21 2011.

EPA-Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

Table K-3 

Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozon

as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria Is Criterion 

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments (40 CFR part 93) 

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 

The 2007 Ozone Plan was developed through consultation with the interagency consultation working group (the Model Coordinating Cthe consultation group include federal, state and local agency incluCARB, Caltrans, SJVUAPCD, and each county’s MPO. The 2011 its Appendices A and C which describe the revised MVEB were mMPOs and other agencies for review and comment during the publreceived a copy of the, the draft SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, draft State Strategy Update, and the draft 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. It provi2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. which CARB addressed. CARB also pinformation supporting the MVEB in CARB 2011 SIP Revision suin response to EPA’s questions, CARB provided additional inform2011 letter sent by Lynn Terry. CARB to Deborah Jordan, EPA anElizabeth Adams on August 9 and 11, 2011. The additional technibudgets provided in documents attached with these communicationquestions. 

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) 

The motor vehicle emission budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified. 

Y 

The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are clearly identified in Appendices A and C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and furthAttachment A of the July 29, 2011 letter and the additional technicby CARB. These budgets reflect control measures that were alread

CARB adopted the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on July 21, 2011. 2Appendix A, p. 3. CARB did not update the MVEB for 2008 beca

no longer needed for any conformity determination in the SJV. 20Appendix C. 

EPA-Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

Table K-3 

Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozon

as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria Is Criterion 

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments (40 CFR part 93) 

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 revised budgets for the y2020, and 2023 when considered together with all other emission sconsistent with the requirement to demonstrate RFP for 1997 8-hofinding is based on our review of the RFP demonstration in the SJV SIP, as revised on July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.G. oproposing to approve the revised RFP demonstration. EPA has concluded that the revised budgets for the year 2023 whewith all other emission sources and controls are consistent with the demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone stanon our review of the updated attainment demonstrations in the SJV as revised on July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.F. of this to approve the revised attainment demonstration. 

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 inventory for all stationary, area, on-road mobile, an

sources, and their relation to control measures and the reductions fdescribed in Attachment A of CARB’s Resolution 07-28 dated Septhe 2007 State Strategy. The reductions from individual existing mbudgets are also described in more detail in Tables B-1 and B-2 in C.9 in Appendix C to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan as well as in the 2Supplement, and additional technical information transmitted from 10 letter and emails on August 9th and 11th. 

EPA-Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA-Region 9 

Table K-3 

Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozon

as Revised on July 21, 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 S

nonattainment area was the SJV 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan. EPA fo2004 SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan to adequate in 2005 (70 FR 7734, Femotor vehicle emission inventories in the 2004 1-hour ozone SIP aEMFAC2002 motor vehicle emissions model, and motor vehicle eSJV 2007 Ozone Plan and subsequent updates were prepared using of the model, EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA fconformity determinations on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464). ThiEMFAC2007 details the basis for the changes to the emission fact

The MVEB being reviewed here are for the 8-hour ozone standard revision to the MVEB previously submitted in the 2004 Ozone Plaaddressed different ozone standards. CARB submitted revisions to the motor vehicle emission budgets Plan as part of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. The revisions removmeasures that were included in the prior RFP and attainment budgSource Rule), included revisions to the Heavy Duty Diesel Truck iHeavy Duty Truck Model and adjusted the reductions associated w

Rule 9310 to reflect updated VMT data from the SJV MPOs. Emiswith the SJV Trip Reduction Rule were also adjusted to reflect act

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 

The 2007 Ozone Plan contains public comments and the District’s G and L. Specifically, appendix G includes comments and respons

series of Town Hall meetings held from July 26-28, 2006. Appendand responses from the District’s public workshops and public com2007 Ozone Plan. Additional verbal comments were received duri

hearings held by the District and CARB and are also included as aNovember 2007 SIP submittal. EPA provided comments on the 20but CARB received no other comments. We have reviewed the comand responses and find the responses to be acceptable. No issues thour adequacy finding remain unanswered. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

L. Status of Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, subpart D of the CAA includes 

other provisions applicable to extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin 

Valley. We briefly describe these provisions and their current status below for informational 

purposes only. 

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

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. 

On July 1, 2010 at 75 FR 38023, EPA approved California’s inspection and maintenance 

program in the San Joaquin Valley 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 standard, the San Joaquin 

Valley was covered under the federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. See CAA section 

211(k)(10)(D). As an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, SJV continues to be covered under the 

federal RFG 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 SJV. EPA 

approved CaRFG3 program into the California SIP on May 12, 2010. See 75 FR 26633. 

3. New Source Review Rule

CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop SIP revisions containing permit 

programs for each of its ozone nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include 

requirements for permits in accordance with CAA section 172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction 

and operation of each new or modified major stationary source (with respect to ozone) anywhere 

in the nonattainment area. See also CAA section 182(e). EPA’s implementation regulations for 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs are in 40 CFR § 51.165, and guidance 

specific to ozone nonattainment areas is provided in the preamble to the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612 at 71671-71684. 

EPA approved the SJVAPCD’s new source review rules, Rules 2201 “New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review” and Rule 2020 “Exemptions,” into the SJV portion of the California 

SIP and found that they had been adequately amended to reflect extreme area requirements. See 

75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010). 

EPA-Region 9 Page 127
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program

CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 requires California to submit for EPA approval a SIP 

revision that includes measures to implement the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. CAA section 

182(c)(4)(B) allows states to “opt-out” of the clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting a 

SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will result in at least equivalent long term 

reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air emissions. 

In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to opt-out of the federal clean fuel fleet program 

This SIP revision demonstrated that is California’s low-emissions vehicle program achieved 

emission reductions at least as large as the federal program would. EPA approved the State’s optout 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. California’s ozone nonattainment areas had implemented Stage II vapor 

recovery well before the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990. See General Preamble at 

13514. 

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, to identify defective equipment, 

and to 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 San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor 

recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest 

versions of which were approved by into the SIP on October 30, 2009. See 74 FR 56120. 

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 monitoring for ambient concentrations of 

ozone, NOx, and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOC. 

The SJVAPCD’s Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (June 30, 2010) describes 

the steps the State has taken to address the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The SJV’s 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network consists of six sites operated by 

SJVAPCD centered around Fresno and Bakersfield. These sites are described on pages 13 and 17 

EPA-Region 9 Page 128
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page 129

of the monitoring network plan.67 EPA has approved the SJVAPCD PAMS network. See letter, 

Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 9 to Scott Nester, SJVAPCD, November 1, 2010. 

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program

CAA section 185 requires that the SIP for each severe and extreme ozone nonattainment 

area provide that, if the area fails to attain by its applicable attainment date, each major stationary 

source of VOC and NOx located in the area shall pay a fee to the State as a penalty for such 

failure for each calendar year beginning after the attainment date, until the area is redesignated as 

an attainment area for ozone. States are not yet required to implement CAA section 185 fee 

programs for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.68

 67 Starting in 2007, EPA’s monitoring rules (see 71 FR 61236), October 17, 2006) required the submittal of 

and EPA action on annual monitoring network plans. 

68 SJVUAPCD submitted Rule 3170, “Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee,” and a feeequivalent program to address the requirements of CAA section 185 for the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA recently 

proposed to approve these programs as a revision to the SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 45212 

(July 28, 2011). 
 Appendix A – State Measures 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. The table should include any substantive rules that would still be 

generating emissions reductions in the San Joaquin Valley during the 2005-2024 time period 

covered by the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP and thus reflected in the baseline for the SIP. 

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 VOC or NOx in the SJV (e.g., 

asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the SJV (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 

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 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-1
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-2

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-3

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-4

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-5

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 Not applicable 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-6

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 07/28/94 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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-7

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 & 

Off-Highway 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-8

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-9

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-10

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 MidTerm 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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-11

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-12

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 In-Use 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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-13

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 Fuels 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-14

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 In-Use Compliance Requirements 

(Amendments). T 13, CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 On-road 

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 

Para-Dicholorobenzene. 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 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-15

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-16

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 OnRoad 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 

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large 

Off-Road 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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-17

APPENDIX TABLE A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category 

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 

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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

B. State Rules that Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect VOC 

or NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. These types of measures include fee rules, 

identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and controls for pollutants 

other than VOC or NOx. 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 VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

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 

Not a ozone emissions reduction 

measure 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 

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 Not a ozone emissions reduction 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 

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 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-18
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-19

APPENDIX TABLE A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 

60200-60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not a ozone 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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-20

APPENDIX TABLE A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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 Not a VOC or NOx emissions reduction 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 Not a PM or ozone control measure 

(perc is not a VOC) 

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200-

60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300-70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not a SJV control measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction measure 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-21

APPENDIX TABLE A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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 applicable to SJV 

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 

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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-22

APPENDIX TABLE A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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 Not a VOC or NOx emissions reduction measure 

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 

95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, 

CCR, 80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not a SJV 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 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-23

APPENDIX TABLE A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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 

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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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) 

Renumbered to section 2282. 

Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

(listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR) 

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2256 12/13/90 

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 NOx reductions estimated at 0.1 tpd 

for SJV. 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) 

Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 

rules 

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 

2261, 2262-2270 06/09/94 

Section 2251.5 - obsolete; section 

2258 wintertime; section 2263, 

superseded 

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measure 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-24
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-25

APPENDIX TABLE A-3 

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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. Not applicable 

to the SJV area. 

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 SJV/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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-26

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 emissions reductions 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit 

Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 

Waiver granted September 16, 1994 

(59 FR 48625 (9/22/94)) 

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 

Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 

FR 46979 (9/13/94)) Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 

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 

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 

Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994 

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 

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 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-27
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-28

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 

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 

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) 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-29

APPENDIX TABLE A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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)) 

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 

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 zero-emission 

bus standards. Fleet requirements 

achieve approximately 2 tpd NOx

reductions statewide, so minimal effect 

in SJV. 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). 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-30

APPENDIX TABLE A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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)) 

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 withinthe-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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-31

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 

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 (7/27/2010) 

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 

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)) 

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 In-Use 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) 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-32

APPENDIX TABLE A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or 

Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 

2022 and 2022.1 

12/08/05 

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 in-use 

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. 

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D 12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program. 

 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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)) 

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, 

2410-2414 03/26/98 

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)) 

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & 

Off-Highway 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 

Addition to March 4, 2000 request 

November 19, 2004. Made changes 

to riding season restrictions. 

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 

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)) 

Within the scope finding November 

9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00)) 

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 

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) 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-33
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-34

APPENDIX TABLE A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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), 

73 FR 58585 (10/7/2008). 

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 

Off-Road 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)) 

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 not waived. 

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 

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, 

CCR Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 

2466 

02/26/04 

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 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 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-35

APPENDIX TABLE A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

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 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008. 

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 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008. 

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 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 

No emissions reductions. No cruise 

ships subject to rule call at SJV 

ports. 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 No emissions reductions claimed for 

SJV. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

and Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration 

(amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119 

11/16/06 No emissions reductions claimed for 

SJV. 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

E. State Consumer Product Measures 

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for more than 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 SJV 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. 

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, 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 11/17/16 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 

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. 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-36
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-37

APPENDIX TABLE A-6 

Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the 

California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

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 MidTerm 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 

Para-Dicholorobenzene. 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 SJVAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622. 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 

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 

CARB sets requirements for and 

certifies vapor recovery equipment. 

District rules establish requirements 

for the installation of CARBcertified equipment. See SJVAPCD 

Rules 4621 & 4622 

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 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-38
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-39

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 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 Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

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 

Covered by District Rule 7021. 

Emissions in category are less than 

0.01 tpd VOC 

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide 

from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of 

Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 

17 & 26, CCR, 93107 

12/10/92 Adopted as District Rule 7060. 

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 

Controls equivalent to SJVAPCD 

Regulation VIII, approved 71 FR 

8461 (2/17/06) 

Air toxic control measures 

prohibits additives with hexavalent 

chromium. Total emissions CA are 

less than 300 lb per year. ISOR, p. 

V-2. 

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile 

Equipment Refinishing Coatings Containing 

Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. 

T 17, CCR, 93112 

09/20/01 

Minimal impact, few units 

certified. See ISOR for 9/28/06 rule 

amendment 

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 

Regulated by Rules 4103 & 4106. 

Rule 4103 revised 5/17/07, 

approved 75 FR 74 FR 57907 

(11/10/09). Rule 4106 (revised 

6/21/01), approved 67 FR 8894 

(2/27/02); additional revision in 

2010. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 

PM control measure. NOx regulated 

by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 

1819 (1/10/08)). PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved primarily 

by replacement of existing engines 

as a result of District rule. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & 

documents incorporate by reference 

2/26/04 

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. 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-40
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011 

EPA-Region 9 Page A-41

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 Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115 

05/26/053/17/05 

Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM 

control measure. NOx regulated by 

Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 

(1/10/08)). PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved primarily 

by replacement of existing engines 

as a result of District rule. 

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. NOx regulated 

by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 

1819 (1/10/08)) 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. 
 Appendix B – SJVAPCD Rules 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4101 Visible Emissions 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 

70 FR 46770 

(8/11/05) 

4103 Open Burning 4/15/2010 4/15/2010 

4/15/2010 5/17/2007 

NPR: 76 FR 40660 

(7/11/11) 

74 FR 57907 

(11/10/09) 

Control strategy me

4104 Reduction of Animal Matter 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) 4105 

Commercial Offsite Multi-User Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities 

12/17/1992 N/A N/A N/A 

4106 Prescribed Burning 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02) 4201 Particulate matter concentrations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 67 FR 16026 (4/4/02) 4202 Particulate matter emission rates 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 65 FR 21347 (4/21/00) 4203 

Particulate Matter Emissions from Incineration of Combustible Refuse 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A no action 

4204 Cotton Gin 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 71 FR 65740 (11/08/06) 

EPA- Region 9 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4301 Fuel Burning Equipment 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 26876 (5/18/1999) 4302 Incinerator Burning 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) 4303 Orchard Heaters 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) 4304 

Equipment Turning Procedures for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 66 FR 5766 (11/16/01) 

4305 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 2 

8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 

4306 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 3 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strategy me

4307 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 2.0 MM BTU/hr to 5.0 MMBTU/hr 

5/19/2011 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strategy me
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4308 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 0.75 MM BTU/hr to 2.0 MMBTU/hr 

12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 76 FR 5276 (1/31/11) Control strategy me

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators and Ovens 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) 4311 Flares 6/18/2009 6/18/2009 

NPR: 

6/18/2009 6/20/2002 

NPR - 76 FR 

52623 (8/23/11) 

68 FR 8835 

(2/26/03) 

Control strategy me

4313 Lime Kilns 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 68 FR 52510 (9/4/2003) 4320 

Advanced Emission Reduction Option for Boilers 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 76 FR 16696 (3/25/11) Control strategy me

4351 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - RACT 

8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 

4352 

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 75 FR 60623 (10/1/10) 

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 5/19/2011 9/16/2010 9/16/2010 76 FR 53640, (8/29/11) Control strategy me
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4401 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 NPR: 6/16/11 12/14/2006 

NPR: 76 56134 (9-

12-11) 

75 FR 3996 

(1/26/10) 

4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 76 FR 39777 (7/7/11) 4403 

Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) 

4404 Heavy Oil Test Station – Kern 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) 4405 

Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Existing Steam Generators (Central and Western Kern County) 

12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A 

4406 

Sulfur Compounds from Oilfield Steam Generators - Kern 

12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A 

4407 In-situ Combustion Well Vents 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 60 FR 12121 (3/6/95) 4408 Glycol Dehydration Systems 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 68 FR 51187 (8/26/03) 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4409 

Components at Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) 

4451 

Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges, Threaded Connections and Process Drains at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) 

4452 

Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum Refiners 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) 

4453 

Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems 

12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 

73 FR 48 (1/02/08) 

withdrawn 

4454 Refinery Process Turnaround 12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 

73 FR 48 (1/02/08) 

withdrawn 

4455 Components at Refineries 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) 4501 Alternate Compliance for BARCT 6/17/1999 6/17/1999 N/A no action 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4550 Conservation Management Practices 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 7683 (2/14/06) 4565 

Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 

3/15/2007 3/15/2007 NPR: 3/15/2007 76 FR 56706 (9/14/11) Control strategy me

4566 Organic Waste 8/18/2011 N/A N/A N/A Control strategy me4570 Confined Animal Facilities 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 

NPR: 

10/21/2010 

6/18/2009 

76 FR 56706 

(9/14/11) 

75 FR 2079 

(1/14/10) 

Control strategy me

4601 Architectural Coatings 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 

12/17/2009 10/31/2001 

NPR: 76 FR 35167 

(6/16/11) 69 FR 34 (1/02/04) 

Control strategy me

4602 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations 

9/17/2009 9/17/2009 

9/17/2009 

12/20/2001 

NPR: 76 FR 3214 

(6/3/11) 

67 FR 42999 

(6/26/02) 

4603 

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 

9/17/2010 9/17/2010 

9/17/2010 

10/16/2008 

NPR: 76 FR 3214 

(6/3/11) 

75 FR 4612 

(1/19/10) 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) 4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 NPR: 6/16/11 9/20/2007 

NPR: 76 56134 (9-

12-11) 

75 FR 3996 

(1/26/10) 

4606 Wood Products Coating Operations 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) 4607 Graphic Arts 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) Control strategy me4610 Glass Coating Operations 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 69 FR 60962 (10/14/04) 4612 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations – Phase 2 

10/21/2010 10/21/2010 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) 

4621 

Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers 

12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09) 

4622 Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicles 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09) 4623 Storage of Organic Liquids 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 70 FR 53937 (9/13/05) Control strategy me
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4624 Transfer of Organic Liquids 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) Control strategy me4625 Wastewater Separators 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 

76 FR 39777 

(7/7/11) 

4641 

Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt Paving and Maintenance Operations 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) 

4642 Solid Waste Disposal Site 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 66 FR 38939 (7/26/01) 4651 Soil Decontamination Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09) 4652 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A No sources 4653 Adhesives 9/16/2010 9/16/2010 9/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) Control strategy me4661 Organic Solvents 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 24406 (5/5/2010) Control strategy me4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) Control strategy me4663 

Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) Control strategy me
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4672 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) 4681 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 63 FR 43881 (8/17/98) 4682 

Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 NPR: 76 FR 41745 (7/15/11) Control strategy me

4684 Polyester Resin Operations 8/18/2011 6/16/2011 NPR: 8/18/11 9/20/2007 

NPR: 76 FR 56132 

(9/12/11) 

75 FR 3996 

(1/26/10) 

4691 

(461.02) 

Vegetable Oil Processing Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 

59 FR 2535 

(1/18/94) 

4692 Commercial Charbroiling 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 3/21/2002 

NPR: 76 FR 38340 

(6/30/11) 

68 FR 33005 

(6/03/03) 

4693 Bakery Ovens 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 

69 FR 22441 

(4/26/04) 

4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks 8/18/2011 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 no action Control strategy me
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

4695 Brandy and Wine Aging 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 76 FR 470761 (8/4/11) Control strategy me4701 I/C Engines - Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 4702 I/C Engines - Phase 2 8/18/2011 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08) Control strategy me4703 Stationary Gas Turbines 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 

74 FR 53888 

(10/21/09) Control strategy me

4801 Sulfur Compounds 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 no action 4802 Sulfuric Acid Mist 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 30396 (6/08/99) 4901 

Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) 

4902 Residential Water Heaters 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 75 FR 24408 (5/5/10) Control strategy me4905 

Natural Gas-fired, fantype, residential central furnaces 

10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) 

8011 Fugitive Dust General Requirements 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 
TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP EPA- Region 9 

APPENDIX TABLE B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

September 8, 2011 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register Cite Co

8021 

Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earthmoving Activities 

8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 

8031 Bulk Materials 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 8041 Carryout and Trackout 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 8051 Open Areas 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 8061 Paved and Unpaved Roads 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 8071 

Unpaved Vehicle/ Equipment Traffic Areas 

9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 

8081 Agricultural Sources 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 9310 School Bus 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 75 FR 10420 (3/8/10) 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 N/A no action Control strategy me

17, 2010 (complete 

9510 Indirect Source Review 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 76 FR 26609 (5/9/11)