# 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 techni cal 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 suppor t document may be found in the docket for this rulemaking, docket no. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0589, wh ich 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 Reclassificat ion 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 SJ V 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 Strate gy 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 TC M to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT
Increases and to Provide for RFP and Atta inment 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 Tec hnology 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 Requirement s Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment
Areas 127

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspect ion 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 NO
x 

### 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 Ru le, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A APPB” peak bias (modeling term) APPE: peak error (modeling term)
ARB: California Air Res ources 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 Qual ity Model with Extensions CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB) CCOS: Central California Ozone Study CCR: California Code of Regulations
CEFS: California Emissions Forecas ting and Planning Inventory System
CEIDARS: California Emissions Invent ory Development and Reporting System CERR: Consolidated Emissions Repor ting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ: Congestion Mitigati on 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: PM 2.5 

### 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/Comme rcial/Institutional IOP: intensive operational periods (modeling term)
km: kilometer

m: meter

m 3 

### : 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 mode l performance analysis
MNB: mean normalized bias MNGE: unpaired peak ratio
MOZART: Model for Ozone A nd 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
NO 2 

### : nitrogen dioxide
NO
x 

### : oxides of nitrogen NOA: notice of availability (of recommendations for designations)
NSR: new source review NYQ: not yet quantified
O 3 

### : ozone OTAQ: EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality PA: process analysis (modeling term)
PAMS: Photochemical Asse ssment Monitoring Stations PCA: principal component analysis

PM 10 

### : particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μ m or less, includes PM 2.5 

### PM 2.5 

### : particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μ m or less PBL: Planetary Boundary Layer (modeling term) PSD: prevention of significant deterioration (new source permitting program) RACM: reasonably availa ble control measures RACT: reasonably availa ble 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 (Uni fied) Air Pollution Control District SNCR: Selective non-catalytic reduction TCM: transportati on 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 BackgroundEPA-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 inform ation and analysis for EPA’s proposed rulemaking action on the San Joaquin Va lley Air Pollution Control District’s 2007 Ozone Plan (adopted April 30, 2007, revised December 18, 2 008 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 Se ptember 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 inte rpreting these requirements. It also describes
the elements of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan a nd 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 a nd secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone to replace the then-c urrent 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 ambien t 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 nu mber 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 expre ssed to the second decimal place, 0.08 ppm. The third decimal place of the comput ed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a computed 3–year averag e 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 th e reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
x 

### ) in the atmosphere in the pr esence 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, partic ularly for children and people with asthma and other respiratory diseases. Oz one has also been associated with increased hospitalizations and emergency room visits for respiratory cau ses, school absences, and reduced activity and productivity as a consequence of ozone-related respiratory symptoms.

Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of h ealth problems. Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irrita tion, an uncomfortable sensation in the chest, and/or pain when breathing deep ly. 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 diffi cult to breathe deepl y, 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 re ductions in lung function, and a lower quality of life if the inflammation occurs repeatedly ove r a long time period. People who are particularly susceptible to the effects of ozone include ch ildren, 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 eff ects 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 eith er 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 pr omulgate final designations. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, EPA is requi red to notify states or tribes of any intended
modifications to their recomme nded 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 th e designation that it deems appropriate.

EPA- Region 9 Page 2TSD 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 Trans portation Equity Act fo r the Twenty-first Century (TEA–21) revised the deadline to promul gate nonattainment designations to provide an additional year (to July 2000). Additional Congressional action re stricted EPA’s authority to spend money to designate areas unt il earlier of June 2001 or the da te of the Suprem e Court ruling in the litigation challe nging the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

In June 2000, we asked each state and tribal Governor or tribal le ader to submit their designation recommendations (including boundary recommendations) and supporting
documentation to EPA. Because of the uncerta inties due to the ongoing litigation on the 8-hour ozone standard, we did not notif y states and tribes of any in tended modifications and did not designate areas at that time. After the legal challenges to th e 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 nonatta inment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. 4 

### On September 8, 2003, EPA published a No tice of Availability (NOA) announcing the availability of the state and trib al recommendations. See 68 FR 52933.

On December 3, 2003, we notified California vi a letter of our intent to accept its recommendation for designating the San Joaqui n 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 availa bility of our letters to Calif ornia and other states that
described our intended modificat ions 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 nonattain ment 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 th e 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 (Apr il 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 st arts the process wher eby a state develops an implementation plan that includes, among othe r things, a demonstrati on showing how the area will attain the NAAQS by the atta inment dates prescribed in the CAA. Under CAA section 182
for ozone nonattainment areas and EPA’s re gulations implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS

4 See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Office r, 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 Schw arzenegger, 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 ha d 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 Reclassificati on 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 request ed that EPA reclassify the area from “serious” to “extreme”
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone sta ndard under section 181( b)(3) of the CAA. 8



### CAA section 181(b)(3) states: “T he 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 Ad ministrator 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 reclassifica tion 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 reas on in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA”) and 40 CFR 51.903(a), Table 1.

We granted California’s reque st on May 5, 2010 and reclassifi ed the San Joaquin Valley
to extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour oz one standard, effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR
24409. Because the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan was devel oped 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 th e 1997 8-hour ozone standard, also known as the ozone implementation rule. We issued this rule in accordance with the stat utory 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 Gold stene, 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 FRTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 5 

### available control technology and measures (R ACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), modeling and attainment demonstratio ns, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The rule is codifi ed 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 almo st 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 Co ast 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, Fres no, 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 le vels and days over the standard. 10 

### See Figure I-1 and Table
I-1.

80420 (December 22, 201 0). 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 cal culated 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 

### F IGURE 

### I-1 

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

T ABLE 

### I-1 

## Days over the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Sta ndard 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 exclud ed 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 Constitu ting 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 technica l information supporting the reasonable further progress demonstrations was subm itted 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 Valle y Unified Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; CARB Reso lution 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 enclos ures; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri , Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 1, 2008 with enclosures (revising th e RFP demonstrations for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley air basins). This documen t 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 Califo rnia’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 Ad ministrator, 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 Re flecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy , adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB, submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documenta tion 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 Ad ministrator, 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) adopt ed 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 R evisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plan Transportation Conf ormity 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 supporti ng information by CARB on July 29, 2011. See CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 a nd 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 additi onal information on the SJV
2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. This addi tional 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 PM 2.5 

### 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 Requirem ents 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 regulati ons in 40 CFR § 51.102.

Both the SJVUAPCD and CARB have satisf ied applicable stat utory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hear ing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The District conducted public wo rkshops, 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 adopti on 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, 2 007 public hearing on the Plan. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to C onsider the Approval of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan,” May 15, 2007. The District also provided th e 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, provi ded public comment pe riods, and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of th e 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeti ng to Consider Approval of th e Proposed State Strategy for California’s State Implementation Plan (S IP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 

### Standards, May 7, 2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07-28, Se ptember 27, 2007. CARB also provide the required public notice, opportunity for public co mment, 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 comp rise 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 incomp lete will be deemed co mplete six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A comple teness 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 usi ng criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
These criteria fall into two cat egories: administrative in formation and technical support information. The administrative information provi des 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 t echnical 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 comple teness 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 Hearin g to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Cons ider Approval of a Proposed Revisi on 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 PM 2.5 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 Joaqui n Valley 2007 8- Hour Ozone SIPTSD 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 y ears of the area’s designation as nonattainment, a “comprehensive, accurate, current in ventory of actual emissions from all sources” of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in accordance with guidan ce 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 secti on 182(a)(1) for each of its subp art 2 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas by June 15, 2006 (for those areas designa ted nonattainment effective June 15, 2004). See 40 CFR § 51.915. These inventories should meet th e ozone-relevant data requirements of EPA’s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, codified at 40 CF R 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 Qu ality Standards (NAAQ S) and Regional Haze Regulations,” EPA–454/R–05–001, November 2005 (“ EI Guidance”). EPA developed the EI Guidance to complement the CERR and to provi de specific guidance on how to develop base year and future year baseline emi ssions inventories for 8-hour ozone, PM 2.5 

### , and regional haze
SIPs. 14



### For areas that were initially designated nonattainment for th e 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 sh ould include emissions of VOC, NO
x 

### , and carbon monoxide (CO) and represent an average su mmer 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 approve d by EPA under CAA section 110(k) and is subject to the public hearing requirements of secti ons 110(a)(2) and (l). For areas classified under subpart 2, the emissions inventory submittal is due one year befo re the attainment and/or RFP Plan. Applicable EPA policy allows a state to defer the public he aring on its inventory un til 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 “project ed baseline inventories, we mean projected emissions inventories for future years that acco unt for, among other things, the ongoi ng effects of econ omic 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 Re gional 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 Requirement s for 1990 Base-Year Emissions Inventories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” September 29, 1992.

In addition to the base year inventory, st ates must also develop specific baseline inventories as part of the r easonable 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, NO
x 

### and VOC, 16 

### as part of the 2007 State Strategy. See Appendix A for the emissions inventor y output tables and Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory. Summer planning inventories are provided for the base year of 2002 a nd 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 Ca lifornia Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) and the California Emission Forecasting and Planning Inventory System (CEFS) databases. Both systems are de scribed in Appendix F. In 2004, CARB submitted the 2002 base year inventory incl uding all necessary data elements to EPA as required by the
CERR.

The inventories in Appendix A are summer season planni ng inventories on which the 2007 State Strategy is based. Inventories for future years (also known as ba seline inventories) incorporate reductions from control measures a dopted 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 a dopted in the 2004 to 2006 time period, as well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 a nd 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 base line planning inventories for NO
x 

### and VOC for the SJV ozone nonattainment area together with additiona l documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix B of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. Summ er average day (May through October) are provided for the base year 2002, 2005 (which wa s 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 initi al 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 estimate d 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 PM 2.5 standards; therefore, baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for 8-hour ozone plans but also ones of importance
for PM 2.5 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, A ppendix B are consistent with th e 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 s hows emissions of CO or emissions from nonanthropogenic sources (that is, biogenic or natu ral sources) although inventories developed for input into the air qual ity modeling do include CO emissions and non-anthropogenic sources. See information at http://www.ar b.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/.

A summary of the 2002 base year, 2005, and th e 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 Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011TABLEA-1Emissions Inventory Summary for the SanJoaquin Valley OzoneNonattainment AreaIncorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2007(tons per summer day)20022005200820112014201720202023Volatile Organic CompoundsStationary Sources87.679.881.582.884.385.887.389.4Area Sources141.8140.5143.9148.4154.4160.5166.6173.0On-Road Mobile Sources113.9101.785.273.161.152.145.741.9Off-Road Mobile Sources76.376.670.966.261.959.458.458.8Adjustments154.360.2249.140.145.646.147.448.9Total473.9458.8430.6410.7407.3403.8405.5411.9Nitrogen OxidesStationary Sources119.8114.5108.0108.9109.9110.6110.8109.9Area Sources11.511.311.111.111.011.011.010.9On-Road Mobile Sources323.5336.5328.4276.4219.8173.3140.1120.1Off-Road Mobile Sources183.5167.6150.2134.9117.5102.290.081.1Adjustments14.08.42-32.0-36.4-38.7-35.9-30.2-27.1Total642.3638.3565.7494.9419.5361.2321.7294.9Source: SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-3 and B-4.1Adjustments are the sum of District and CARB adjustments from Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B to the 2007 Ozone Plan.2CARB did not provide adjustments for 2005, value represents District adjustments only.EPA- Region 9Page 15TSD 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, CA RB submitted revised base year and future year baseline inventories. These revisions were the result of several factors include revised inventorying methodologies, be tter activity and usage data, the reductions from measures adopted since 2007, and changes to economic forecas ts for certain source categories in 2008 and later years.

C ARB made technical changes to the inventory for di esel 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 St ate of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, ProposedAmendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the TractorTrailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation , October 2010, p. 17.

C ARB also comprehensively updated and revise d the inventory for certain categories of off-road equipment as part its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In-Use Off-Road Equipment Rule. These include d updates and revisions to:

• 

### equipment population

• 

### hours of use

• 

### load factors

• 

### future equipment sales and activity

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial St ate of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-F ueled Fleets and the Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010, pp. 16-17.

SJVAPCD has also made revisions to the ba se year and baseline inventories since
submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan. These revisi ons include developing a new methodology for estimating NO
x 

### emissions from industrial equipment for which natural gas consumption or emissions are not reported for individual sour ces. The initial emissions estimates for these “unspecified” manufacturing and industrial natural gas consump tion sources in the 2007 Ozone Plan came from an estimate developed in th e early 1990s. After reviewing this emissions estimates for this category and being unable subs tantiate them, the Dist rict developed a new methodology for estimating emissions in this category. The revised methodology substantially
reduced the estimate of NO
x 

### emissions from this category. See Table A-2 below. See also SJVAPCD, “2007 Area Sources Em issions Inventory Methodol ogy, 050-Industrial Natural Gas Combustion,” June 13, 2006.

EPA- Region 9 Page 16TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### 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 th e methodology for estimating emissions from agricultural burning of prunings and field crops and weed abatement. See SJVAPCD, “2007
Area Sources Emissions Inve ntory Methodology, 670-Agricultur al Burning,” June 9, 2008. Many of these changes inventory improvements we re made in the period between adoption of
the 2007 Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan. See Draft 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan, Appendix B, December 2007.

Collectively, these revisions re duce the total 2002 base year NO
x 

### and VOC inventory by approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, resp ectively. 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 asso ciated emissions from the State’s construction and goods movement sectors. 2011 Ozone SI P 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, projecte d emission levels from these categories in the years up to 2017-2018 are now lower than were orig inally 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 attainme nt) or the starting point for the reasonable further progress demonstra tion. Their principal eff ect 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 availa ble to the public for comment at the same
time as the draft 2007 Ozone Plan and draft 2007 St atewide Strategy and were subject to public hearing as part of final ve rsion of the Plan and Strate gy. See SJVAPCD Governing Board

EPA- Region 9 Page 17TSD 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 PM 2.5 

### Plan, Notice of Public Workshops; CARB, Notice of P ublic Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for Californi a’s 2007 State Implementation Pl an and Consider Approval of Proposed Revisions for the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 

### SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,” June 20, 2011.

Consistent with the 8-hour ozone implement ation 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-a pproved version of the State’s mobile source emissions model,
EMFAC2007.

Based on our evaluation of the inventories a nd the recent changes to them, we propose to approve the 2002 base year emi ssions inventory in the 2007 Stat e Strategy and the 2007 Ozone Plan as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisi ons 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 SJ V 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 Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011TABLEA-3Revised Emissions Inventory Summary for theSan Joaquin Valley OzoneNonattainment AreaIncorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2011(tons per summer day)2002200820112014201720202023Volatile Organic CompoundsStationary&AreaSources276263226223229235244On-RoadMobileSources110786650433937Off-RoadMobileSources71676259575757Total457408354331329331339Nitrogen OxidesStationary&AreaSources101766857555353On-RoadMobileSources3122291831531159169Off-RoadMobileSources15212010898898073Total565425359308259224195Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B-3.EPA- Region 9Page 19TSD 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) require s states with ozone nonattai nment areas classified as serious or above to submit plans that demonstrat e attainment of the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e 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), th e attainment demonstr ation is due within three years of the area’s desi gnation as nonattainment and should include technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emi ssions 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 stra tegy will result in atta inment of the NAAQS. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year an d compared to air qual ity monitoring data in order to evaluate model performance. Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, future year changes to the em issions inventory are simulated to determine the relationship between emissions reductions and changes in ambi ent 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 EP A’s “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### , and Regional Haze.” EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007 18 

### (“Guidance”).

2. Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) co mprises a field study data collection and processing, air quality modeling, an d 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 ai r pollution control agenci es, federal agencies, industry groups, academics, and contractors. Meteor ological and air qualit y field study data for CCOS were collected during the 4 months from June through Oc tober 2000 and included five several-day intensive monitori ng 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 mode led these with the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), with meteorologi cal fields from the Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5).

The 2007 Ozone Plan’s air quality modeling is discussed in th e Executive Summary (p.ES-8) and Chapter 3 “What is Needed to Demons trate Attainment?” with detailed descriptions and results in Appendix F “Photochemical Mode ling 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 Un monitored 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 diagnosti c 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 perfor ming a modeled demonstration.

The Guidance (pp. 126-128 (pdf. 135-137)) lists ex amples of key components of such a description: local vs. regional nonattainment pr oblem; vertical and horiz ontal extent of high concentrations; characteristic sp atial patterns; monitored viola tions 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 nona ttainment 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 seve ral places, including Chapter 3 (pp. 3-1 – 3-4 (pdf. 3-6)), with similar material in the St aff 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 hi gh ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. These include the Sierra Nevada, Tehachapi, and Sout h Coast mountain ranges that surround the SJV except toward the north, and which restrict air flow and ventilation. Th e summers are hot with little rain fall or cloud cover (F resno, 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 tr ansported up into mountai n valleys during the day.
Recirculation can also occur via the “Fresno eddy”, a counterclockw ise flow that returns polluted air that would otherwise escape th rough southern mountain passes. A ll of these contribute to the buildup of ozone and precursors, due to enhan ced 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 Re sources 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 modele d provide additional info rmation 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 developm ent 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 m odeling protocol should detail and forma lize the procedures for conducting all phases of the modeling study, such as describing the b ackground and objectives for the study, creating a schedule and organizational stru cture for the study, developing the input data, conducting model performance evaluations, interpreting modeling results, describing pro cedures for using the model to demonstrate whether proposed strategi es are sufficient to attain the NAAQS and/or regional haze goals, and producing documenta tion 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 comm unication procedures to be used

c. Participating organizations

EPA- Region 9 Page 22TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### d. Schedule for completion of attainment dem onstration 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 qual ity, meteorological, and emissions models
b. Modeling domain

c. Horizontal and vert ical 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 applic ation 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 th at 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 analys es will be archived and documented
b. Identify specific deliverabl es 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 m odel should meet several general criteria fo r 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 CF R part 51, Appendix W. The Guidance does not recommend a specific model for use in the attain ment demonstration. At present, there is no single model which has been extensively tested and shown to be clearl y superior than its alternatives. Thus, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W doe s 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 23TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 24 

### St ates/Tribes should use a non-proprietary mode l, which is a model whose source code is available for free (or for a “reasonable” cost). Furt hermore, 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 shoul d meet several additional prerequisites to be used to support an atta inment demonstration:

1. revised in response to a scientific peer review;

2. appropriate for the specific app lication 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 w hy it believes the new model is expected to perform sufficiently); and

5. applied consistently wi th the protocol on methods and procedures.

2007 Ozone Plan’s Model selection is discussed in the Protoc ol (p. 20 (pdf. 26)). CARB considered the SAQM 22 

### , CMAQ 23 

### , and CAMx 24 

### 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 cons idered 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 diag nostic 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 eas e of set up, as well as better performance based on limited testing.

Any of the three candidate models would ha ve 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 S tatewide A ir

P ollution R esearch C enter (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 no ted (p. 31 (pdf. 37)) that SAPRC was the most up-to-date mechanism available at the time a nd 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 ch emical mechanism for use in the attainment demonstration modeling.

22 SAQM: S ARMAP A ir Q uality M odel, 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: C ommunity M ultiscale A ir Q uality Modeling System, developed by EPA.

24 CAMx: C omprehensive A ir Quality M odel with E x tensions, developed by ENVIRON Corporation.TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### d. Episode Selection

The Guidance discusses severa l criteria for selecting time periods to model (p. 140-147 (pdf. 149-156)). Experience has shown that eval uation 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 conditi ons (regimes or episode types), concentrations near the area’s design value, peri ods 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 principa l 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 incl uded a network of upper-air and surface meteorological monitoring stations in addi tion to the existing routine networks, with yet additional measurements including some from inst rumented 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 ma ximum 1-hour ozone concentrati on was 151 ppb and occurred on August 2 nd 

### at Edison, southeast of Bakersfield in th e southern SJV. The maximum 8-hour ozone concentration was 106 ppb and occurred on August 2 nd 

### 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 ep isode. Protocol p. 15 (pdf. 21).

Based on historical meteorological comparis ons, 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 con centrations, so that the modeling could be useful for the Bay Area as well as for the SJV. Th e July 11-12, 1999 period was also chosen for modeling, even though it had only routine meteorologi cal 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 11 th 

### at Clovis, northeast of Fres no 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 origin ally under consideration (the above two, September 17-21, 2000, and August 8-15, 2002), but due to time and res ource constraints the decision was made to focus on the July 2000 and July 1999 episodes, esp ecially after initial m odeling 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 con centrations near the monitors’ ozone design values and had meteorological features typical of high ozone such as slope, eddy, and marine flows (noted in the “Conceptu al Description” discussion ab ove) and transport patterns
characteristic of Central Califor nia. Chapter 3, p. 3-7 (pdf. 9).

EPA believes that the chosen episodes provi de an adequate basis for the attainment
demonstration.

EPA- Region 9 Page 25TSD 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 th e 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 a ffected by regional transport of ozone and its precursors may be able to use a relatively small domain. Some areas of th e western U.S. may fall into this category. The modeling domain should be designed so that all major upwind source
areas that influence the downwi nd nonattainment area are include d 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 abou t 4 km, but not larger than 12 km. States/Tribes should examine past model applica tions and data analyses for their area when choosing the fine grid resolution. Past model appl ications and data analyses may help determine whether a grid cell size as small as 4 km (or sm aller) 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 dia gnostic tests to assess the diffe rence in model performance and response from varying model grid resolution, part icularly in oxidant-limited areas. All ozone
monitor locations within a nonatt ainment area should ordinarily be placed within the fine scale portion of a nested regional grid if nest ed models are used. Guidance p. 157 (pdf. 166).

Vertical resolution chosen will vary depending on th e 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 unrealis tic 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 th ick; resolution above the boundary layer can generally be coarser. Recent ap plications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100 millibars) have used anywhere from 12 to 21 ve rtical layers with 8-15 layers approximately within the boundary layer (below 2500 m) and 4- 6 layers above the Pl anetary 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 incl uding all of the Central Va lley 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 epis ode 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 Sacram ento 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 s ubstantial effect on the simulations. The 4 km grid horizontal resolution used is considerably more refined than the 12 km Guidance

EPA- Region 9 Page 26TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### recommendation, and the number of layers is cons istent with the range in the Guidance. EPA believes the chosen modeling domain is ade quate for the attainme nt 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 specif y 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 consider ed more credible than the assumption of static concentrations, since the pol lutant concentration fields reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical processes driv en by assimilated meteorological observations. Therefore, we recommend using boundary conditions derived from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible. We recommend usi ng a “ramp-up” period by beginning a simulation prior to a period of interest to diminish th e importance of initial conditions; we recommend a ramp-up period of at least 2-3 days for ozone. Di agnostic 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 t oo short. In either case, it should generally be assumed that initial and boundary conditions do not change in the future. The use of a ltered initial or boundary conditions in the future year should be doc umented and justified. Guidance p. 153 (pdf. 162).

2007 Ozone Plan’s initial and boundary conditions are discussed starti ng at Protocol p. 36 (pdf. 42). Generally defaults from earlier EP A guidance document “Guide line for the Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model”, EPA, (EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991) were used as a starting point, but th ese were checked against available ozonesonde data and aircraft

EPA- Region 9 Page 27TSD 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 Di strict, 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 w ith 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 in itial conditions is adequate for the attainment demonstration.

g . Meteorological Mode l Selection and Setup

G enerally 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 speci fic meteorological variables from a given initial state. When modeling past events, the use of data assimilation helps to “n udge” solutions so that they do not diverge greatly from the actual observed meteorol ogical fields. A major benefit of using dynamic meteorological models is that they provide a wa y 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 gene rate the meteorologi cal fields should be included in the modeling protocol. In cases in which standard meteorological modeling ( e.g. MM5, RAMS, or WRF in a retrospe ctive 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 regi onal office(s) prior to conducting the air quality modeling analys is. 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 demonstra tions will cover large areas and use nested grids. The outermost grid should cap ture all upwind areas th at can reasonably be expected to influence local con centrations of ozone, and/or PM 2.5 

### . 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 fi ner resolution; in these specif ic situations it is recommended that the air quality model applic ation use available results from meteorological models on the next coarser scale. Guidance p. 161 (pdf. 170).

EPA- Region 9 Page 28TSD 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 seve ral options for specifying the planetary boundary layer scheme or the cumulus parameterization. In many situations, the “o ptimal” configuration cannot be determined without performing an initial series of sensitivity tests which consider various combinations of physics options over specif ic 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 te sts 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 th at 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 starti ng at Protocol p. 19 (pdf. 25). CARB considered the NCEP Eta model 25 

### , as well as RAMS, MM5, and WRF. The Eta model has mainly been used for weather forecas ting 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 do main that it supplies me teorological fields to; it has 189 x 189 cells, each 4 km on a side. This is ne sted 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 Califor nia 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 vert ical layers, and the Ju ly 1999 episode used 30 layers. FDDA was used only for the outer two gr ids; data from some 300 surface and 25 upper air meteorological stations was availabl e 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 out er grids (2000 episode only). The Protocol also states that many combinations of model options were tested befo re settling on the final choices. Some of these options are discussed in th e following subsection on meteorological model performance.

EPA believes that the meteorological model c hoice and setup are c onsistent with the Guidance, and are adequate for use in the attainment demonstration modeling.

h. Meteorological Model Performance

EPA recommends that States/Tribes devote appr opriate effort to the process of evaluating the meteorological inputs to the air quality m odel 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 o ccurred during the modeling period. This can be

EPA- Region 9 Page 30TSD 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 pred ictions in order to allow for an downstream assessment of how the air quality modeling results ar e 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 depi ction 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 parame ters as paired with and compared to observed
data. It is recommended that the observation - model matching be pair ed as closely as possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparis ons of the key meteorological parameters will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, m ean normalized bias, mean absolute error, mean absolute normalized error, root mean square erro r (systematic and unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over large domain s 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 m onths/seasons to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the meteorological streng ths and weaknesses.

Phenomenological Evaluation: Within the conceptual description of a particular modeling exercise, it is recomme nded that the specific meteorologi cal parameters that influence air quality be identified and qualitatively ranked in importance. When evaluating meteorological models or any other source of meteorological da ta, the focus of the phenomenological evaluation should be on those specific meteorological ph enomena 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 qual ity 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, a ccurate 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 Meteorol ogical 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 plot s over the days of each episode showing observed and simulated wind spee d, wind direction, or temp erature, b) scatter plots of wind speed gross error against wind speed r oot mean square error, and c) scatter plots of temperature gross error against temperature bi as. The scatter plots in clude 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 phys ics options, starting at p. F-89 (pdf. 91).

For the 1999 episode, statistics and plots we re prepared for three different MM5 runs: without FDDA, with FDDA, and with FDDA but excluding data from short (2 meter)

EPA- Region 9 Page 31TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### meteorological towers. CARB notes that FDDA im proved results, but excl uding 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 re sults: For the Bay Area region, wind speeds were generally underpredicted and te mperatures showed good agreement with observations, while for the Sacramento region wind speed performan ce was good ,and temperatures tended to be underpredicted during the day and overpredicted during the morni ng. For the Central, Southern, and Northern San Joaquin regions, winds tend ed to be underpredicted some, and again temperatures tended to be underpredicted duri ng the day and overpredic ted during the morning.
The simulations were the result of substantia l 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 Atmosphe ric Administration (NOAA) with alternative land-surface model physics opti ons 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 tende d to worsen performance for temperature.
CARB also states that all of the FDDA runs di d fairly well for the wind field, but for temperature the initial NOAA run performed the best. (Altho ugh for the Angiola temperature time series included in the documentation, the CARB runs l ook better. Figure 1-12(a), p. F-87 (pdf. 89). The initial NOAA run of MM5 was used for the air qua lity modeling. (see results summary staring at p. F-77 (pdf. 79).

CARB states that, in addition to these operational evaluation an alyses, qualitative performance analyses of the meteorological m odel were undertaken. These included comparison of modeled and observed wind patte rns, to ensure that the mode l 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 observa tions with the simulated wind field at the profiler location, and of upper air observations with simulate d 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 th e 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 input s for base case, baseline, and future modeling years. Preparation of emissions data for air quality models for th e 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 modeli ng grid). For ozone model applications, emission inventories should include a complete accounting of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC (speciated), NO
x 

### , and CO. Second, modelers must collect “ancillary data” associated with the

EPA- Region 9 Page 32TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### inventories, which prescribes the spatial, tem poral, and chemical speciation information about the emission inventory. Third, modelers use the ancillary data for “emissions modeling”. Emissions models spatially, temporally, chemicall y, 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 y ear emission inventories to the future year, and then use an emissions model to pr epare that future year inventory data for input to the air quality model. Fifth, emissions inventor ies 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 th e modeling inventory prep aration process. The topics covered include: quality assurance checks, the effects of growth a nd of the application of control measures, temporally resolved emissions for some larger point sources, temporal
allocation of annual emissions to account for mont hly and weekly variati ons, diurnal profiles of emissions, temperature dependence of emissions from some source types, California-specific vehicle emissions from the EMFAC model, a summa ry of some of the algorithms and inputs to the BEIGIS biogenic emissions model, spatia l allocation of the va rious source category emissions into model grid squares (via known coor dinates for point source s and for links of the roadway network, land use and demographic spat ial surrogates for area source categories), speciation of VOC emissions into particular chemical species needed by the photochemical model’s chemical mechanism, and speciation of NO
x 

### into NO and NO 2



### . The Protocol’s description of the emissions input process is fairly comprehensive, and covers all the key topics in the EPA Guidance. EPA believe s that the emission inventory prepared for input to the air quali ty model is adequate to suppor t the attainment demonstration.

j. Air Quality Model Performance

Model performance can be assessed in te rms of its ability to replicate observed
concentrations of ozone and its precursors (operational evaluation), and in te rms of the model’s ability to correctly portray physic al processes, and thus its abi lity 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), p eak bias (APPB), and peak error (APPE). The defining formulas are at Guidan ce p. 198 (pdf. 207). Other statistics such as mean bias, mean error, root mean square erro r, correlation coefficients, etc

. should also be calculated to the extent that they provide meaningful information. Graphi cal analyses can also be useful, such as time series and scatter plots of modeled vs. observed concentrations, spatial pl ots or animations of modeled ozone in each grid cell with observe d values noted for monitor locations. EPA no longer recommends specific performance goals for st atistical metrics, and cautions against their use as “pass/fail” tests. Guid ance 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 performa nce 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 33TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 34 

### indicator species ratios that gi ve clues about which processes ar e dominant, and whether VOC or
NO
x 

### is the limiting precursor for ozone formatio n. Probing tools include source apportionment tools that track the chemical products of emissions from speci fied source groups, the direct decoupled method (DDM) that reports model sens itivity to input changes without rerunning the model, and process analysis (PA) that tracks the contributions of particular physical and chemical process to model result s. A retrospective analysis comp ares modeled trends to observed trends given known emission changes over a histor ical 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, altern ative vertical layer schemes, and finer or coarse grid resolu tion. 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 F 26 

### . Chapter 3 states: “In general, modeling of these episodes met performance standards, but some c oncentrations were under-predicted at sites in the SJVAB.” p. 3-7 (pdf. 9). Appendix F lists statis tics that were calculat ed to evaluate model performance for 1-hour ozone and 8-hour ozone (T able 2-1, p. F-99 (pdf. 101)); these are the substantially same as the statistics recomme nded in the EPA Guidance. The exception is that instead of the peak bias and peak error, a compar able “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 cons idered, regardless of the particular hour. The abbreviations used
in the Plan also differ from EPA’s: EPA’s m ean 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 percen t, 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 additiona l criterion of a concentr ation 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 s ubsection on the Modeled
Attainment Test.

The numeric values for the statistics are not pr esented in the Plan, but they are portrayed graphically. In addition to time series plots of monitored and modeled CO, ozone, NO, and NO 2 

### , Appendix F has scatter plots of normalized bias (NB) against the UPR. These are presented for both 1-hour and 8-hour ozone, for ea ch 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 inclusi on 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 a nd Southern SJV regions, ozone is stated to be underpredicted during the day and overpredicted during the morni ng, 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 NO 2 

### 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 in clusion 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 No rthern SJV region ozone on some days is overpredicted. Performance for NO 2 

### is stated to vary over the th ree 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, s light overprediction in the Sacramento and Central SJV regions. For th e Southern SJV region, which had the highest ozone concentrations, there is some underp rediction on the highest days, and some overprediction on other days, though the disagr eement was not large. Overall performance appears to be good.



## Model Performance for Southern SJ V Sub-Region, July 2000 Episode

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



### In addition to these statistics a nd 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 mob ile emissions; changing ozone boundary conditions; changing NO
x 

### initial conditions; and doub ling 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 explanat ory text. In each case, the model responded in a reasonable way to the changes; for example there were substa ntial ozone decreases when biogenic emissions were removed, and modest increases when th e 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 ar eas; this is explained by noting that the removed NO
x 

### 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 re sults 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 c ondition changes was mainly at the outer domain boundaries, wh ich provides assurance that th e model results are not overly driven by the boundary conditions, which can be re latively uncertain. These tests show that the model is performing in a physically reasonable way.

An extensive set of performance statistics a nd sensitivity analyses was undertaken to assess model performance, consistent with the Guidan ce, and the model was shown to perform well. EPA believes the model performance is adequate for conducting the attain ment 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 te st 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 fact or at locations “near” each monitor by the observation-based “baseline” de sign value for the monitor. The resulting predicted “future concentrations” are co mpared to NAAQS. Guidance p. 15 (pdf. 24).

Future concentration

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

= (baseline design value) * RRF

A fter analyzing how RRFs vary with the number of days modeled and with the choice of minimum ozone threshold, EPA recommended several cr iteria 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 dailymaximum 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 F 29



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

28 NO

x is mostly emitted as NO, which "titrates" ozone (O 3 ) to oxygen (O 2 ), so its first effect is to decrease ozone, even though the ultimate effect is to increase ozone further downwind. Thus, lower NO

x 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 w ithin 15 km of the monitor. Tables on p. F-128 (pdf. 130) give the number of days meeting the NB and GE pe rformance goals discussed in the previous subsection, and so available for the RRF calcula tions 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 tw o future years of 2020 and 2023. Each table has a column for every day modeled in the two epis odes, 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 calculatio n, 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
NO
x 

### and VOC emission reductions (0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% each); note that the reductions are relative to future year emissions without new controls beyond th e 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 in corporating 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 NO
x 

### reduction it corresponds to, assuming zero percent benefit from additional VOC control), a 47 percent emission reduction is required for attain ment (Chapter 3, p. 3-8, (pdf. 10); Appendix F, p. F-38, (pdf. 40); isopleth diag ram with RRFs and with 40 ppb offset). This translates into a 75 percent reduction from base year NO
x 

### 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 capac ity 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 th roughout 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 consideri ng all uncertainties in modeling, however, this variation is consid ered minor.” 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3-13. In other words, when total emissions no more than the le vels indicated on the carrying capacity diagram, it is assumed that the NAAQS is attained. Th is is assumed even though the model response would be slightly different if it directly simula ted the control measures themselves, since their effects are not necessarily evenly applied to all locations in the SJV.

The Plan applies the modeled attainment te st in accordance with EPA Guidance, except
that the Plan’s version is mo re conservative, since it assu mes a constant 40 ppb background. Although the 2023 effect of new control measures wa s not directly modeled, as the Plan states, given all the uncertainties the carrying capacity a pproach 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 mi ght exceed the NAAQS in the base year or after

EPA- Region 9 Page 37TSD 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 factor s may be applied only at monitor locations, and is particularly necessary in nonatt ainment areas where the ozone or PM 2.5 

### monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the ne twork 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 St ate). In order to examine unmonitored areas in all portions of the domain, it is recommended to use interpolated spatial
fields of ambient data combin ed 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.

Gr adient-adjusted spatial fields are first crea ted for the base year. Future year estimates can then be created by applying gridded RRFs to the gradient-adj usted 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 m odel output gradients (b ase year values);

3. 

### Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient-adjusted spatial fields; and

4. 

### Determine if any unmonitored areas are pred icted 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 Peak s” contained only a pla ceholder sentence (p. F-14 (pdf. 16)), but CARB later submitted its Un monitored 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 resu lting ozone level (or the RRF, for step 3). Around each monitor the maps show include a rectangl e 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 overest imated at the time of the modeling, unspecified natural gas combustion, may be responsible for the higher value in that ce ll. 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 an d the lack of a strong gradient in the step 4 fields, there do not appear to be any unmonitored NAAQS viol ations. The relocation of the Arvin monitor may be able to provide additional a ssurance that the potentia lly 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 result s support the attainment demonstration.

EPA- Region 9 Page 38TSD 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 Evid ence Determination
States/Tribes should always perform compleme ntary analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data, and consider modeling out puts other than the results of the attainment test. Such analyses are instrumental in guiding the conduct of an air quality modeling application. Sometimes, the result s of corroboratory analyses ma y 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 39TSD 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 (s uch as change in the num ber of grid cells above the NAAQS), trends in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, recepto r modeling, and indicator species approaches.

T ABLE 

### B-1 

## Guidelines For Weight of Evidence Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment Test Supplemental Analyses Ozone our PM 2.5 Annual PM 2.5 24-H

Future Design Value Future Design Value Future Design Value Basic supplemental analyses

m < 82 ppb, all
monitor sites < 14.5 μg/m 3 , all
monitor sites < 62 μg/m 3 , 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/m 3 , at

one or more sites/grid cells 62-67 μg/m 3 , 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/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid
cells > 68 μg/m 3 , 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 Cond itions” that provides de tail 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.
17

ff

(pdf. 19 ff

). 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 “Cor roborative 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 s how 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 4 th 

### highest daily ozone value for each year) shows slightly more progress, and the decline in the number of 8-hour exceedanceTSD 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 locatio ns. 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 Oz one Trends for

Source: Plan Appendix F, Figure 5-7, p. F-148 (pdf. 150).



### NO
x 

### and VOC (comparable to “ROG” in the Plan documents) emissions have had a steady 1,

ochemical Assessment Monitoring Statio ns (PAMS) measurements of ambient

concen the

on prediction of
ozone N

3. Conclusions d to remove for the effect of unfavor able meteorology via a regression procedure, the downward trends appear stronge r, though there are high valu es 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. A ppendix F, Figures 5-11 and 5-12, p. F-15 (pdf. 153).

Phot
trations of NO
x 

### and VOC, and also the reactivity of the VOC mix, have also showed steady declines. Progress was fa irly flat during 1999-2002, and NO
x 

### progress is less than for VOC and reactivity metrics. Appendi x F, Figure 5-13, p. F-152 (pdf. 154).

EPA believes that these analyses support th e attainment demonstrati

AAQS attainment, and constitute an adequate weight of evidence determination.

ent demonstr ation 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 attainmTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 42 

### The air quality modeling documentation in Ch apter 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 mo st 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 demonstra tion 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 furthe r 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 contro l measures as expediti ously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from ex isting sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasona bly 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 nonatt ainment area that is required to submit an attainment demonstration, the state must also submit a SIP revision dem onstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to de monstrate attainment as expedi tiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. 40 CFR § 51.912(d).

EPA has previously provided guidance in terpreting the RACM requirement in the
General Preamble at 13560 30 

### and in a memorandum entitled “Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Atta inment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” John Seitz , Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz memo). 31 

### In summary, EPA guidan ce provides that to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states should consider all poten tially reasonable control measures for source categories in the nonattainment area to determin e whether they are reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they wo uld, if implemented individually or collectively,
advance the area’s attainment date by one or more years. 32



### EPA defines RACM as any poten tial control measure for appl ication 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) tec hnologically feasible, (2) eco nomically 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 Subm ission on RACM from Stat es with Severe One-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area SI Ps,” December 14, 2000.

32 For ozone nonattainment areas classified as mode rate 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 Cont rol Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources of NO

x . 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 NO

x 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) collectivel y 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 ar e 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 Stat e Strategy, the District, CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV’s eight metropol itan planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a process to identify and evaluate potentia l reasonably available c ontrol measures that could contribute to expeditious at tainment of the 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. We describe each agency’s efforts below.

a. District RACM Analysis

T he District’s RACM analysis and its result s 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



### T o identify potential RACM, the District revi ewed 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 Fr esno Council of Governments;

• workshops held by the South Coast AQMD and CARB;

33 These plans include the 2003 PM 10 Plan (approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)), the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), and 2008 PM 2.5 (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 requeste d 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 Extrem e [1-hour] Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan;

• measures suggested by the public in vari ous 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.

T he identified potential measures, as well as existing District meas ures, are described by emissions inventory category in Appendix I of the Plan.

F rom this set of potential c ontrols, the District developed a Stationary Source Regulatory Implementation Schedule (2007 Ozone Plan, Tabl e 6-1, revised December 18, 2008) which gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and implem entation of the selected RACM measures. See Table C-1 below. The schedule was developed based on a variety of factors, including:

• technological feasibility and pr acticality of emission controls;

• magnitude of emissions from the source category and likely emissions reductions;

• cost, financial impacts, and potential fo r socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, profitability);

• District authority and enforceability of emissions reductions;

• rate and timing of emissions reductions;

• public acceptability, including interests a nd concerns of community members;

• pollutants reduced – NO
x 

### , or VOC or both;

• any potential adverse environmental impacts; and.

• potential for disparate environmenta l impacts (environmental justice).

2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6-3.

The District also identified a number of sour ce categories for which feasibility studies to refine the inventory and evalua te potential controls would be done. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-2. Updated information on the st atus of many of thes e feasibility studies can be found in the 2010 Ozone MCR, section 3.2 and the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 

### Progress Report, section 2.2.

The Plan also includes descriptions of the Di strict’s incentive programs (which target onand off-road engine replacement with an emphasi s on diesel engines), it s innovative strategies program including its Fast Track emissions reduc tions measures, and public education efforts. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8, 2010 Oz one MCR, Sections 5 and 6, and SJV 2011

PM 2.5 

### Progress Report, section 2.3 and 2.4

EPA- Region 9 Page 45TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### C-1 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2007 Ozone Plan Specifi c Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule
Number Adoption
Date Earliest Compliance
Date Reductions
Start

S-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids 4565 1 st Q - 2007 2008 2008

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 4103 2 nd Q -2007 2007 2007

2 nd Q – 2010 2010 2010

S-SOL-11 Solvents 4661/4662/4663 3 rd Q – 2007 2010 2010

S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 3 rd Q – 2007 2010 2012

S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination 4651 3 rd Q – 2007 2008 NA

S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam 4682 3 rd Q – 2007 2010 2011

S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage &
Transfer 4623

4624 4 th Q – 2007 2009 2009

S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage
— 3 rd Q – 2007 2010 2010

S-COM-1 Large Boilers 4306

4320 3 rd Q – 2008 2011 2011

S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators
and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3 rd Q – 2008 2020 2012 from
incentives

S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3 rd Q – 2008 Varies 2008

S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts 4607 4 th Q – 2008 2011 2011

S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1 st Q – 2009 Attrition 2011

S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste 4566 4 th Q - 2010 2012 2012

S-IND-21 Flares 4311 2 nd Q – 2009 NA NA

S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging 4695 3 rd Q – 2009 NA NA

S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings 4601 4 th Q – 2009 2012 2012

S-AGR-2 CAFO 4570 2 nd Q – 2010 2011 2011

S-SOL-6 Adhesives 4653 3 rd Q – 2010 2012 2012

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6- 1, revised December 18, 2008.

EPA- Region 9 Page 46TSD 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 analys is 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 NO
x 

### emissions reductions from transportation control measures (TCM). TCM are generally measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle m iles traveled, vehicle tr ips, 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 standa rd 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 eval uated potential TCM through a multi-step

process: Step 1. Develop a list of potential reas onably available local control measures.

To identify potential measures, the MPOs revi ewed measures from previous San Joaquin Valley RACM processes, more recent guidance mate rials, applicable SIPs, and suggestion made by the public during the District’s Town Hall me etings. 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 develope d 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 NO
x 

### reduction from each measure. Examples of these assumptions are given on p. 9-5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The total
maximum reduction in NO
x 

### emissions that could be achieve d 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 reduction s 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 NO
x 

### 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
NO
x 

### 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 Govern ments, the Merced County As sociation 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 NO
x 

### 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 determ ined that there were no additional local RACM, beyond those measures al ready adopted, that would adva nce attainment of the 8-hour
ozone standard in the SJV and thus no addi tional 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 di stributing, beginning in FY2011, 20 percent of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum co st-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 vehicl es, fuels, and consumer products – in Chapter 3 of the 2007 State Strategy. Califor nia has unique authority under th e 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 extens ive public consultation process to identify potential SIP measures. This process is described in the 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9-10. It included a SIP Sym posium in October 2006 and a workshop in November 2006 to discuss development of potential control conc epts for meeting the fe deral 8-hour ozone and

PM 2.5 

### standards. 37 

### CARB made available a draft of the 2007 State Strategy for public review in April 2007 and then conducted a series of pub lic 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 pub lic 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 PM 2.5 

### nonattainment problem. 2007 State Strategy, p. 65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8. Thes e measures focused on cleaning up the in-use (“legacy”) fleet as well as increasing the stri ngency 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 extens ive existing program to address emissions of
NO
x 

### , and VOC from all types of mobile sour ces, through both regulations and incentive programs, as well as from fuels and consumerproducts. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38. Table C2 lists these measures and their expected action and implementation schedul e as initially adopted in 2007 State Strategy as adopting in Septem ber 2007. These measures also include one
additional measure each from the California Bure au 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



### T ABLE 

### 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 Equi pment 2007 Phase-in starting 2008

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural E quipment 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 50TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### 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 Agricu ltural 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 51TSD 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 Distri ct evaluated a rang e 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 SJ V. The process and the criteria the District used to select certain measures and reject othe rs 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 classi fied 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 NO
x 

### 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 disapp rove this RACT SIP based on our proposed determination that the RACT SIP does not adequately demonstrate compliance with section 182 RACT requirements fo r ten source categories. See Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implemen tation 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 NO
x 

### . Attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standa rd in the SJV depends on significant
reductions in NO
x 

### from new technologies. Air quality modeling shows that no level of VOC reductions will bring about attainment of the 8-h our ozone standard in the SJV absent these NO
x 

### reductions and no reasonable level of VOC reducti ons will expedite attainment absent significant
NO
x 

### reductions. 38 

### See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 3.

Under EPA’s longstanding policy, a SIP meet s 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 th e 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 implem entation of the missing RA CT-level controls on the ten categories will expedite attainment.

Because attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard depends on NO
x 

### 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. Sp ecifically, we have evaluated whether the potential additional reduc tions 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 fo r RFP and will need to be combined with significant NO

x 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 NO
x 

### 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 re ductions lost from fleet turn
over in 2022 and to attain.

T ABLE 

### 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 NO
x 

### 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 NO
x 

### emissions level would still be well
above the level needed for attainment even after accounting for all c ontrols adopted through 2011, eliminating all emissions from solid-fuel bo ilers (a level of cont rol well beyond RACT), assuming the maximum feasible reductions fr om TCM in 2023 (as discussed above), fullyTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### crediting reductions from measures that are not currently creditable, a nd including the estimated
reductions from identified measures that are yet to be adopted.

T ABLE 

### 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

NO
x 

### in tpd 2023

Projected 2023 emissions leve ls with controls adopted prior to 2011 195

- 5 1 

### 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 commitments 2 

### - 4.7

Estimated reductions from Rule 4702 as revised on August 18, 2011 3 

### - 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 NO

x 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 NO

x 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 a nd 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 m easures that would advance attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. Therefor e, 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)(i i) to implement RACT on all major sources and all CTG source categories.

EPA- Region 9 Page 54TSD 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 “inc lude enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures , means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, a nd 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 th e applicable attainment date....” See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). The ozone implementation ru le requires all control measures needed for attainment be implemented no later than the be ginning of the attainment year ozone season. 40 CFR § 51.908(d). The attainment year ozone seas on is defined as the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area’s a ttainment date. 40 CFR § 51.900(g).

In most instances, a nonattainment plan shoul d 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 th at are already SIP approved, fede rally promulgated, or otherwise SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circ umstances exist that warrant the initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of thes e adopted measures. It believes that the CAA allows approval of such enforceable commitme nts 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 SI P 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-mont h period for the state to correct the nonimplementation before mandato ry sanctions are imposed.

Congress recognized that extreme ozone nonatt ainment 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 secti on 182(e)(5) allows EPA to appr ove an extreme area plan and attainment demonstration that anticipate de velopment 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 55TSD 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 emissi ons reductions through to th e attainment year of 2023 and beyond. 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline i nventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide the majority of emissions reductions needed to at tain the 8-hour ozone
standards in the SJV. See Table F-1 in this TSD.

Control strategy measures are the new rule s, rule revisions, and commitments that provide the additional increment of emissions re ductions needed beyond the baseline measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM/RACT, and/or provi de 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 Strate gy Measures and Commitments

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and implementing 19 new control measures for VOC or NO
x 

### . See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1 (revised December 18, 2008) a nd SJVUAPCD Governing Board Re solution 07-04-011a, p. 6. In Table D-1 below, we list these measures, which mostly involve strength ening existing District rules, along with their anticipat ed and actual adoption dates, anticipated and actual final compliance dates, and anticipated and actual initia l implementation dates. As can be seen from Table D-1, the District has met its rulemaking sc hedule 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 Tabl e 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 reducti ons from rules that are either approved or proposed for approva l and therefore are creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other CAA purposes.

For a number of potential measures identif ied 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 Di strict 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 includ ed 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 Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011TABLED-1San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule CommitmentsMeasure Number & DescriptionDistrict RuleNumberAdoption DateEarliest Compliance DateReductions StartAnticipatedActualAnticipatedActualAnticipatedActualS-GOV-1 Composting Biosolids45651stQ - 2007March 20072008200820082008S-AGR-1 Open Burning (Phase IV)41032ndQ – 2010April 20102010201020092010S-SOL-11 SolventsOrganic Solvents46613rdQ – 2007September20072010200820102008Organic Solvent DegreasingSeptember2007200846622008Organic Solvent CleaningSeptember2007200846632008S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines47033rdQ – 2007September20072012201220122009S-IND-24 Soil Decontamination46513rdQ – 2007September200720082008NA2008S-IND-6 Polystyrene Foam46823rdQ – 2007September20072010201020112010S-PET-1&2 Gasoline Storage &Transfer462346244thQ – 2007December20072009200920092009S-PET-3 Aviation Fuel Storage—3rdQ – 2007found notfeasible2010—2010—S-COM-1 Large Boilers430643203rdQ – 2008October 200820122012 to 201420122011S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generatorsand Process Heaters(2 to 5 MMBtu/hr)43073rdQ – 2008October 200820122010 to 201620122010EPA- Region 9Page 57TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page 58TABLED-1San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule CommitmentsMeasure Number & DescriptionDistrict RuleNumberEarliest Compliance DateReductions StartAdoption DateAnticipated Actual AnticipatedActualAnticipatedActualS-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces43543rdQ – 2008October 20082009NOxlimits –2014-20182009NOxlimits –2011S-SOL-20 Graphic Arts46074thQ – 2008December20082011201020112010S-COM-9 Residential Water Heaters49021stQ – 2009March 2009AttritionAttrition20112010S-GOV-5 Composting Green Waste45664thQ 0 2010August 20112012201220122012S-IND-21 Flares43112ndQ – 2009June 2009NA (2010)2011NA (2010)2011S-IND-14 Brandy and Wine Aging46953rdQ – 2009September2009NA2012NA2012S-SOL-1 Architectural Coatings46014thQ – 2009December20092012201120122011S-AGR-2 CAFO45702ndQ – 2010October 20102011201120112011S-SOL-6 Adhesives46533rdQ – 2010September20102012201120122011Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December18, 2008. Actual information from specific rules.TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011TABLED-2San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictEstimated Emissions Reductions for 2007Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments(tons per summer day)NOxEmissions Reductions2008201120122014201720202023S-AGR-1Open Burning1.12.42.42.43.53.53.4S-COM-5Stationary Gas Turbines0.00.60.60.610.640.660.68S-COM-1Large Boilers0.00.00.690.720.750.770.8S-COM-2Medium Boilers0.00.00.510.510.510.510.51S-COM-7Glass Melting Furnaces1.21.21.61.71.81.92.0S-COM-9Residential Water Heaters0.00.20.250.40.550.70.85S-IND-21Flares0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Commitment to Total NOxReductions2.34.46.06.37.88.08.2VOC Emissions Reductions2008201120122014201720202023S-GOV-1Composting Biosolids23.43.43.94.04.14.1S-AGR-1Open Burning1.32.82.82.82.82.82.7S-SOL-11Solvents0.01.31.31.391.461.531.62S-IND-24Soil Decontamination0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0S-IND-6Polystyrene Foam0.00.00.10.10.110.120.35S-PET-1&2Gasoline Storage & Transfer0.00.90.920.991.031.071.08EPA- Region 9Page 59TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page 60TABLED-2San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictEstimated Emissions Reductions for 2007Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments(tons per summer day)S-PET-3Aviation Fuel Storage0.00.050.050.050.050.050.05S-SOL-20Graphic Arts0.00.00.070.070.080.080.08S-GOV-5Composting Green Waste0.00.0910101111S-IND-21Flares0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0S-IND-14Brandy and Wine Aging0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0S-SOL-1Architectural Coatings0.00.022.12.12.22.3S-AGR-2CAFO0.06.86.718.920.421.522.9S-SOL-6Adhesives0.00.00.110.170.120.130.15Commitment to Total VOC Reductions3.315.326.540.542.244.546.3Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table6-1, revised December 18, 2008.TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### D-3


## Approval and Submittal Status of SJ VAPCD 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 Heater s (> 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 Approv ed 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 61TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 62 

### T ABLE 

### D-3


## Approval and Submittal Status of SJ VAPCD 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 RuleTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011TABLED-4San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictEstimated Emissions Reductions for2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted1(tons per summer day)NOxEmissions Reductions201120122014201720202023S-AGR-1Open Burning1.91.91.91.91.91.9S-COM-5Stationary Gas Turbines0.02.22.22.32.42.5S-COM-1Large, Medium and Small Boilers0.11.81.92.12.52.8S-COM-7Glass Melting Furnaces1.52.23.84.14.34.5S-COM-9Residential Water Heaters0.20.30.50.81.01.0Employer-Based Trip Reduction0.00.00.90.70.50.4Total NOxreductions from rules as adopted3.68.411.311.812.613.0Commitment to total NOxreductions4.46.06.37.88.08.2NOxreductions remaining as commitment0.8-2.4-5.0-4.8-4.6-5.2Source: Email, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD toFrances Wicher, EPA date, attachment “2007Ozone Plan Emissions Reductions.” Reductions shown arethe sum of the reductions listed in the attachment and reductions on Table D-2 above.1Rules with no estimated reductions or zero reductions are not shown.EPA- Region 9Page 63TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011TABLED-4–CONTINUEDSan Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictEstimated Emissions Reductions for2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted1(tons per summer day)VOC Emissions Reductions201120122014201720202023S-GOV-1Composting Biosolids4.04.14.14.14.24.2S-AGR-1Open Burning2.52.52.52.52.52.5S-SOL-11Solvents3.03.03.13.33.43.7S-IND-6Polystyrene Foam0.10.10.10.10.10.4S-PET-1&2Gasoline Storage & Transfer3.84.04.34.44.64.7S-SOL-20Graphic Arts0.50.50.50.50.50.5S-SOL-1Architectural Coatings02.83.03.23.23.2S-AGR-2CAFO20.320.721.522.824.125.3S-SOL-6Adhesives0.60.60.70.70.80.9Employer-Based Trip ReductionTotal VOC reductions from rules as adopted34.938.340.542.043.945.8Commitment to total VOC reductions15.326.540.542.244.546.3VOC reductions remaining as commitment-19.6-11.80.00.20.60.5Source: Email, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA July 7, 2011, attachment “2007 Ozone Plan Emissions Reductions.” (2023adjustment for open burning should be -0.19 and not the -2.19 listed on this table). Reductions shown are the sum of the reductions listed in theattachment and reductions on Table D-2 above.1Rules with no estimated reductions or reductions off zero are not shown.EPA- Region 9Page 64TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011Table D-5San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictCurrent SIP Creditable Emissions Reductionsfor 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted(tons per summer day)NOxEmissions Reductions201120122014201720202023S-AGR-1Open Burning1.91.91.91.91.91.9S-COM-5Stationary Gas Turbines0.02.22.22.32.42.5S-COM-1Large, Medium and Small Boilers01.81.92.12.52.8S-COM-7Glass Melting Furnaces1.52.23.84.14.34.5S-COM-9Residential Water Heaters0.20.30.50.81.01.0Total SIP Creditable NOxReductions from Rules3.66.210.311.112.012.6Commitment to total NOxreductions4.46.06.37.88.08.2NOxreductions remaining as commitment0.8-0.2-4.0-3.3-4.0-4.6EPA- Region 9Page 65TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page 66Table D-5 - ContinuedSan Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control DistrictCurrent SIP Creditable Emissions Reductionsfor 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted(tons per summer day)VOC Emissions Reductions201120122014201720202023S-GOV-1Composting Biosolids4.04.14.14.14.24.2S-AGR-1Open Burning2.52.52.52.52.52.5S-SOL-11Solvents3.03.03.13.33.43.7S-IND-6Polystyrene Foam0.10.10.10.10.10.4S-PET-1&2Gasoline Storage & Transfer3.83.94.34.44.64.7S-SOL-20Graphic Arts0.50.50.50.50.50.5S-SOL-1Architectural Coatings02.83.03.23.23.2S-AGR-2CAFO20.320.721.522.824.125.3Total SIP Creditable VOC Reductions from Rules34.337.739.841.343.144.5Commitment to total VOC reductions15.326.540.542.244.546.3VOC reductions remaining as commitment-19.0-11.20.70.81.41.8TSD 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 de fined 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 co mmitments to achieve specific aggregate
reductions of NO
x 

### and VOC in the SJV by certain dates. S ee Table D-6 below. The nature of this commitment is described in the State Strategy as follows:

The total emission reductions from the ne w measures necessary to attain the
federal standards are an enforceable St ate commitment in the SIP. While the proposed State Strategy includes estimates of the emission reductions from each of the individual new measures, it is importa nt to note that the commitment of the State Strategy is to achieve the total em ission reductions necessary to attain the federal standards, which would be the a ggregate of all exis ting and proposed new measures combined. Therefore, if a part icular measure does not get its expected emission reductions, the State still comm its to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions, whether this is real ized 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 67TSD 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



### NO
x 

### 76 88-93 56 46 81

Source: 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolu tion 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 CA RB’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 st atus. As can be seen from this table, the State has already adopted a nd EPA has approved or proposed to approve or is in the process of granting waivers under CAA s ection 209 to most of these measures. These new
measures build on the State’s alr eady extensive set of adopted meas ure; 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, requ ires 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 specifi c aggregate emissions reductions. 41 

### See 2007 State Strategy, p. 66: “[c]onsistent with secti on 182(e)(5) of the fede ral Clean Air Act, [the 2007 State Strategy] includes long-term commitments to achieve the la st 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 NO
x 

### reductions beyond those already identified would be needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley. 2007 Stat e Strategy, p. 66. See also Table D-7 above.

41 CAA section 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve prov isions 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 NO
x 

### emissions from the 2002 base year le vel is necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A 75 per cent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an attainment target level of 160 tpd NO
x 

### . See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NO
x 

### emissions downward by 12 percent. This revision to the base year inve ntory resulted from changes to inventorying methodologies. See
Section II.A. of this TSD.

Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal ap proach 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 othe r 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 a nd 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8.

As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP Re visions, 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 n ecessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
in the SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Stra tegy 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 re duction from the base year NO
x 

### emissions level, based on the modeling provided in the Plan as submitted in 2 007, provides the best available estimate of the
NO
x 

### 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 NO
x 

### 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 attain ment 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 a nd reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the emissions reductions necessary to provide fo r attainment. CARB ha s stated that these
commitments are sufficient to address the concer ns we raised in our comment letter. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1.

42 For reasons discussed in the air quality modeling s ection 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 reac h 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 change s, CARB has adjusted future year baseline emissions to reflect methodology changes and impr oved data. See section II.A.2. of this TSD, Tables D-8 and D-9 show original and adjusted baseline emissions in ventories for the source categories. Table D-10 lists the emissions reduc tions (from the adjusted baseline emissions inventories) that the St ate now estimates it will achieve from its measures as adopted or revised.
Table D-11 shows the reductions from State me asures that are current SIP creditable.

T ABLE 

### D-8 

## Original and Adjusted NO

x 

## 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 71TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### D-9 

## Original and Adjusted VOC Baselin e 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 Li ne-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 Revisi on Supplement, Attachment 1.



### T ABLE 

### D-10 

## Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures San Joaquin Valley (tons per summer day, 2023)

State Measures NO

x 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 Recreationa l 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
NO

x reductions in the SJV are shown here.

EPA- Region 9 Page 72TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 73 

### T ABLE 

### D-11 

## Creditable Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures San Joaquin Valley (tons per summer day, 2023)

State Measure NO

x 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 NO
x 

### 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 baselin e 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 adopt ed (and in many case revised each several times) more than 70 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of either NO
x 

### 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 boi lers, numerous solvent source categories, oil production and refining operations, and agricultural sources. The gr eat majority of these rules and rule revisions are currently SIP approved an d as such their emissions reductions are fully
creditable in attainment and RFP demons trations and for other CAA requirements.

California has adopted standards for many cate gories of on- and off-road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numer ous categories of consumer products. The State’s measures fall within two categories: measures fo r 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 fede ral 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 meas ures 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 Ve hicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which amended the CAA of 1963). In further CAA amendm ents, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90-148), Congress allowed the State of Ca lifornia, and only California, a waiver of the Air Quality Act’s pre-emption of state emi ssions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines because of California’s pi oneering efforts and uniq ue problems. This was not changed when the statute was amende d 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 th e best means to protect the health of its citizens and th e 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 emissi ons 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 Calif ornia, a waiver of pre-emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mi rror 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 ve hicle emissions standards that are subject to a section 209(b) waiver without requiring Californi a 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 cred it for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standa rds 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 En vironmental 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 similarl y to the Federal non-road standards, which are relied upon, but not includ ed in, various SIPs.

Credit for Federal measures, including thos e 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 co ntent 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, independent ly enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they ar e 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 subs titute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has hi storically 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 leve l of aggregate equivalen ce to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In this re spect, 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 no n-road vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California non-roa d 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, an d thereby serve an an ti-backsliding function
similar in substance to those established fo r SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between Ca lifornia and EPA mobile source standards
diminishes the difference in the emissions reduc tions 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 harmonizati on 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 enforcemen t of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB’s enforcement program is e qually 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 reduc tions from CARB’s rules in the same manner as EPA’s mobile source enforcement program lends assu rance to other state’s SI Ps 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 prac tice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-related waiver measures by allowing Ca lifornia to include motor vehicle emissions

EPA- Region 9 Page 75TSD 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 (a nd its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions
factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehiclerelated waiver measures through review and a pproval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and da ta, as well as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA’s mo tor 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 an d many other factors. The motor vehi cle emissions estimates themselves
combine EMFAC results with vehicle activit y estimates, among other considerations. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the relate d 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 m easures” and that are estimated through use of
EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissi ons reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SI Ps 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 standa rds 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 noti ce 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 pro cess is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the wa iver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process pl us SIP approval proce ss). 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 allo wing 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 subm ittal. With respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: “The following appendi ces are portions of the Ca lifornia Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer direc tly 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 Amen dments to the CAA, is a general savings clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory inte rpretations 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 statut e rendering EPA’s consistent prior treatment of California’s motor vehicle st andards inconsistent with the Act. Moreover, where Congress intends state contro l 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 regula tions), section 211(m) (oxygenate d gasoline regulations), and section 246 (centrally fueled fleets). Thus, in section 193, Congress eff ectively ratified EPA’s longstanding pre-1990 practice of allowing emissions reduction credit for California standards subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of th e standards in the SIP itself.

As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identi cal language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre-emption of stat e 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 ag ency interpretations and its subsequent revision
of the statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA’s interpretation w ith respect to motor
vehicle standards is further compelling evidence that the Ag ency correctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209
waiver without requiring Calif ornia to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, th e general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long-st anding practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not inse rt any language into the statut e 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 Calif ornia with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to prot ect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addi tion to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing Califor nia with the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather , would add to the regul atory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standa rds, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intend ed 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 ac quiescence as to EPA’s treatmen t of the standa rds, the Act’s structure, evolution, and provisi on for the waiver of Federal pr e-emption for California mobile source emissions standards, as discussed above , support EPA’s long-sta nding interpretation of the CAA to allow California to rely on emissions reductions resulting from waiver measures in SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver meas ures’ absence from the SIP itself.

EPA- Region 9 Page 77TSD 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 Cali fornia’s inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, SmogCheck, and cleaner burning gasoline a nd diesel regulations. Generally, the State’s baseline non-waiver measures have been approve d 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 SJ VUAPCD's commitments to achieve specific aggregate
emissions reductions of NO
x 

### and VOC by specific years as give n 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 iden tified 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 commit ments 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 n ecessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV as give n 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 decreas es 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 NO
x 

### emissions from the 2002 base year le vel is necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A 75 per cent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an attainment target level of 160 tpd NO
x 

### . See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NO
x 

### emissions downward by 12 percent. This revision to the base year inve ntory resulted from changes to inventorying methodologies. See
Section II.A. of this TSD.

Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal ap proach 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 othe r 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 a nd 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8.

As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP Re visions, 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 s ection 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 revise d 2002 base year level. CARB, however, also recognized that a 75 percent reduc tion from the revised baseline (an attainment target level of 141.3 tpd) is the outside bound of the NO
x 

### reductions needed to attainment the
1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV and rea ffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to
achieve all emissions reductions that are necessary to provi de 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 NO
x 

### emissions level provides the best available estimate of the NO
x 

### 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 co mmit to achieving a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### 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 Va lley 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 a nd 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 reac h 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 demonstrat e attainment, given the relative ly long time between developing the initial plan and the degree of emissions re ductions needed to atta in the standard. These measures would include those that may anticipat e 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 a pprove provisions in an extreme area nonattainment area plan which anticipate de velopment 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 provision s and the attainment demonstration, the state mu st demonstrate that:

1. the provisions are not necessa ry to achieve the incrementa l reductions required during the first 10 years af ter November 15, 1990; 48 

### and

2. the State has submitted enforceable commit ments to develop and adopt contingency to be implemented if the anticipated technologies do not achieve the planned
reductions.

Under section 182(e)(5), the St ate must submit its contingenc y 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 re ductions sufficient, in conjunc tion with other approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions and to a ttain 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 imple ment the provisions rela ted to new technologies approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5), the Admini strator 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 findi ng of failure to meet a milestone.

The General Preamble further provides that the new technology measures contemplated by section 182(e)(5) may include th ose that anticipate future technol ogical developments as well as those that require complex analyses, deci sion making and coordina tion among a number of government agencies. See General Preamble at 13524. An attainment dem onstration th at relies on long-term new technology measur es under section 182(e)(5) must identify any such measures and contain a schedule outlining the steps leadin g 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 m ilestone, i.e., to achieve the periodic emissions reductions required by CAA sec tions 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 NO
x 

### reductions from long-term measures (CARB terminology for the new technol ogies provisions) were needed in order to
attain the 1997 8-hour ozone sta ndard in the SJV by 2024. The Dist rict’s and State’s long-term strategies are discussed in s ection 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 cu rrent and foreseeable mobile source NO
x 

### controls, if fully deployed, would provide sufficient emissions re ductions 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 year s old or younger, all diesel tr ucks would meet the 2010 NO
x 

### standards, all diesel construc tion and farm equipment would m eet the most stringent tier 4 standards, all locomotives would me et U.S. EPA’s then-proposed 2017 NO
x 

### 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 woul d still be approximately 35 tpd above its attainment target of 160 tpd of NO
x 

### . Id.

The District also evaluated the impact ofaccelerating the deployment of the cleanestavailable on- and off-road engi nes 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



### C ARB has provided a list of pot ential long-term control measures which include reduced deterioration of emission control equipment in passenger vehicles, ti ghter engine emission standards, cleaner ground support equipment at ai rports, 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 St ate Strategy Status Report, pp. 25-27 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix A, pp. A-8 to A-12.

T o implement the long-term strategy, CARB has committed to a process that will help ensure that the long-term measur es are adopted and that reducti ons are achieved by the beginning
of the last full ozone season be fore the attainment date. CARB is coordinating a government, private and public effort to esta blish emission goals for critical mobile and stationary emission

49 The District included its “An Action Plan for Redu cing 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 pe riodic assessment of technology advancement opportunities and updates to the Board and th e public regarding new emission control opportunities and progress in ach ieving the long-term measure reductions. CARB’s commitment for implementing the long-term strategy also includ es (a) sharing the results of its efforts to identify emerging emissions reduction opportuniti es, promising technologies, and the progress made in developing long-term emission reducti on measures with th e public through periodic briefings to the Board, workshops, conferences, sy mposia, website postings and other means, (b) working to secure resources in the future fo r continuing research and development of new technologies, and (c) development of schedules for moving from control technology research to implementation. Id.

A n initial step in the long-term strategy was the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. EPA, CARB and the Sout h Coast and San Joaqui n Valley Air Districts to commit to developing and testing new sustai nable 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 te chnologies 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 ot her federal departments and agencies and other local and state entities wi th 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 necessa ry 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 focu s has been on an area that straddles Kern and Tulare counties, which is impacted by m obile source emissions from the goods movement corridor of Highway 99 and Interstate 5, and stat ionary sources from a variety of emissions sources such as energy production facilities, fa rms, and agricultural pr ocessing 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 emi ssions 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 w ill provide emissions reductions that will be incorporated into future air quality plans for ozone and fine particles.

• California’s Air Quality Improvement Progr am (AQIP) is an incentive program administered by CARB to fund clean vehi cle 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 82TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 83 

### emission vehicles and other advanced tec hnologies 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 producti on economies of scale. AQIP is also providing vehicle purchaser incentives for zero emission passenger vehicles, plugin hybrid cars, electric lawnmowers, and demonstrat ion projects for cleaner marine and locomotive engines.

• California’s annual research program, wh ich identifies projects and provides funding to help provide timely scientific and technical info rmation 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 m odifications to the 2023 emission reduction target based on updated scienc e and (2) identify additional strategies and implementing agencies needed to achieve th e 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 adva nced 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 summa ries of strategi es 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 innova tive strategies. Its “Fast Track” strategy includes opportunities to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks by shifting goods movement to lower-emission alternatives, such as shor t-sea shipping. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded the Port s of Stockton, West Sacramento, and Oakland with a $30 million grant to move goods between Oakland and the tw o inland ports over the San Joaquin-Sacramento
Delta.

The District has also adopted a Technology Advancement Program (TAP) which is its strategic approach to encour aging innovation and developmen t of new emission reduction technologies. The TAP will consist of an ongoing review of new technology concepts, interagency partnerships, fundi ng 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, CA RB, 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.o rg/Grant_Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition to the TAP, the District has established a Re gional 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, industr ial, 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 technolo gies to reduce air pollution in the SJV. The adopted control measures and enforceable commitments, discusse d 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 n eeded 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 unde r 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 a nd 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 pr oposed findings that these provision s satisfy the two criteria in CAA section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B).

First, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP doe s not rely on any of the new technology reductions to demonstrate RFP in any milest one 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 subm ittal 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, de monstrate and deploy technologies for achieving the needed reductions . These steps include establishing a Technology Advancement Program and funding incentive program s. Both CARB and the District have made commitments to research, eval uate, 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 commitmen ts by CARB to develop and submit revisions to the Strategy by no later than 2020 th at will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023 emission reduction target based on updated scienc e 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 84TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### CARB has also committed to achieve 81 tpd of NO
x 

### 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 sche duled for long-term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already adop ted in regulatory form or scheduled for nearterm adoption, should clearly decrease in any fu ture SIP update, and that EPA will not approve a
SIP revision that contains an increase in the amount or relative proporti on of section 182(e)(5) new technology measures without a convincing showing in a SIP re vision that the technologies relied upon in the near-term rules have been found to be technologically inf easible or ineffective in achieving the expected emissions reductions.

EPA- Region 9 Page 85TSD 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) require s states with ozone nonattai nment areas classified as serious or above to submit plans that demonstrat e attainment of the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than th e applicable attainment date. Under the ozone implementation rule (40 CFR § 51.9 08), the attainment demonstrati on is due within three years of the area’s designation as nonattainment and should include:

(1) technical analyses to locate and identif y sources of emissions that are causing
violations of the 8-hour ozone NAA QS within the nonattainment area;

(2) adopted measure with schedules for impl ementation and other means and techniques necessary and appropriate for attainment; and

(3) contingency measures required u nder section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

See 70 FR 71612 at 71615.

The requirements for items 1 and 2 are descri bed in the emissions inventory, air quality modeling, and RACM sections of this TSD. Re quirements 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 Oz one 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 adopt ed most of the measures in th eir 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 emi ssions inventory to refl ect improved methodologies
and data. The effect of these revisions to the at tainment demonstration ar e shown in Table F-3.

EPA- Region 9 Page 86TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### F-1 

## Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s Ozone Attainment Demonstrati on as Submitted November 2007 (tons per summer day, 2023)

VOC NO
x



### 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 incl uding 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 87TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### F-2 

## Summary of Control Strategy Reducti ons by Agency in the Attainment Demonstration as Submitted November 2007 (tons per summer day)

VOC NO

x



### A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy
measures to attain 108 490

B Total reductions from cont rol 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 strate gy reductions from State
commitments 30% 34%

E New technology
– 80 1



### % of total control stra tegy reductions from new technologies – 59%

Source: CARB Staff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 14

1 CARB’s commitment is to 81 tpd NO

x reduction from new technologies. See CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3

EPA- Region 9 Page 88TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### F-3 

## Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s
Ozone Attainment Demonstr ation Updated July 2011 (tons per summer day, 2023)

VOC NO
x



### 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 adopte d prior to June 2011) 338.6 195

Reductions from baseline measures and control strategy measures adopted prior to June 2011 1 

### 118 370

% of reductions needed for attainment from baseline measures and control strategy measures adopted prior to
June 2011 103% 87%

Reductions needed from re maining 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 SI P creditable and non creditable.



### 3. Evaluation and Conclusions

a. Enforceable Commitments in th e 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 shoul d 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 th at are already SIP approved, fede rally promulgated, or otherwise SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circ umstances exist that warra nt the initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of thes e adopted measures. It believes that the CAA allows approval of such enforceable commitme nts as elements of a CAA control strategy requirement when they are limited in scope. On ce 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 portio n of the statutorily-required pr ogram; (b) is the state capable

EPA- Region 9 Page 89TSD 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 comm itment for a reasonable and appropriate period
of time. 51



### As shown in Table F-4 below, reductions in th e projected future year baseline inventory from measures already adopted by the District an d State (both prior to and as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan as well as the subsequent 2008 PM 2.5 

### 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 Distri ct 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 NO
x 

### emissions reductions and a substantial
fraction of the VOC reductions needed to demonstr ate 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, mo st sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area are currently subject to stringent rules adop ted prior to the State St rategy’s and the Plan’s development, leaving few opport unities (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 potenti al control measures th at 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 wa rrant 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 determin e whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA pl anning requirements is approvable: (a) do the commitments address a limited portion of the st atutorily-required progra m; (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 em issions reductions needed to demonstrate RFP

51 The U.S. Court of Appeals fo r the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agen cy's use and application of the three factor test in ap proving 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 em issions reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we discuss here onl y 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 th e San Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and 4.6 tpd of NO
x 

### (the remaining portion of CARB’s 2023 NO
x 

### commitment). When compared to the
total reductions needed to dem onstration attainment, the remain ing portion of the enforceable commitments represents at most 6.7 percent of the needed VOC and 1.1 percent of the needed
NO
x 

### . Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with enforceable commitments in the range of 10 percent or less. See our approval of the SJV PM 10 

### 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 appr oval of the SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP at 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 2011), and proposed a pproval of the South Coast PM 2.5 

### 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 NO
x 

### emissions for the attainment year of 2023. See Table D-4. It also has already adopted ru les (Rules 9510 and 4320) that are projected to achieve NO
x 

### reductions in the attainment year. These reductions, however, are not currently creditable to the attainment and RFP demonstr ations. In addition, it has adopt revisions to District Rule 4702 (R eciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) that are likely to
achieve substantial NO
x 

### 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 Opera tions) 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 Ma terial 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 CA RB 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 co nsidered. As a result, reductions
attributed in the attainment demonstr ation to new technologies are not consid ered 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 PM 2.5 

### Progress Report, section 2.3 54



### 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 NO
x 

### and VOC to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley by June 15, 2024.

T ABLE 

### F-4 

## Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments based on Approved or Propos ed for Approval Measure s (tons per summer day in 2023)

NO
x 

### 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 measur es 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 NO
x 

### , reductions from new technologies (C-D-E) 53.2 7.7

G Reductions remaining as CARB enforceable
commitments 1 

### 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 NO
x 

### , reductions from new technologies 1.1% 6.7%

1 Calculated by subtracting from CARB’s 2023 46 tpd NO

x 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 NO

x emissions reductions remaining as commitments. See Table D-5.

54 SJVAPCD, 2011 PM 2.5 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 em issions to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaqui n 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 ha ve already been achieved and the rules to achieve the few remaining ones are schedul e for adoption by 2013, EPA considers these schedules to provide sufficient ti me to achieve the few remaini ng 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 dem onstration, 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 abov e in sections II.A. and II.B., we are proposing to approve the revised emissions inventories and to find the ai r 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 reducti ons that are relied on for attainment are creditable and are sufficient to provide for a ttainment. As shown on Table F-4., the 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP relies principally on adopted and appr oved/waived rules to achieve the emissions
reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-hour oz one 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
NO
x 

### in the near term from available and identi fied 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 NO
x 

### . EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control
measures in attainment demonstrations wh en 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 co mmitments and that the th ree 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 ca pability to meet their commitments, and 3) the commitment are for an appropriate timeframe. Ba sed 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 93TSD 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 develo pment of new technologies and allows EPA to approve attainment demonstrations based, in part, on those provisi ons. For the reasons discussed in section II.E., we are proposing to find that Ca lifornia has met the conditions for relying on new technology provisions in its attain ment demonstration for the SJV.

As discussed above in section IV.C.2. above, the SJV Ozone Plan a nd State Strategy, as adopted in 2007, demonstrates th at a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to atta in the 1997 8-hour ozone standar d. Since the adoption of the SJV ozone SIP in 2007, the base year NO
x 

### 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 pe rform 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 em issions inventory improvements and any other new information by December 31, 2014 or by the da te 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 proposi ng to approve this commitment.

EPA believes that a 75 percent re duction from the base year NO
x 

### emissions level from the existing modeling provides the best currently available estimate of the NO
x 

### 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 Stat e 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 NO
x 

### emissions reductions from new technologies is sufficient to cove r any reductions that may be need ed for attainment due to the changes to the base year inventory.

For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to approve the attainme nt demonstration in
the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.

EPA- Region 9 Page 94TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 95 

## G. Reasonable Furth er 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 sectio n 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 en suring attainment of the applicable [standard] by the applicable date.”

CAA section 182(b)(1) specifically requires th at SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or hi gher demonstrate a 15 percent redu ction in VOC emissions between the years of 1990 and 1996. For ozone nonattainment ar eas classified as serious or higher, CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) also requires the SIPs de monstrate 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) prohibi ts states from including emi ssions reductions from pre-1990 federal motor vehicle control programs in their RFP. 55



### The ozone implementation rule interprets th e RFP requirements for the purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. It establishes requi rements 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-app roved 182(b)(1) plan for the 1-hour ozone
standard that covers the curre nt 1997 8-hour ozone standard n onattainment area. See 62 FR 1150, 1172 (January 8, 1997).

Fo r 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 per cent per year of VOC and/or NO
x 

### 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 § 51.9 10(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions re ductions 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 im plementation rule also sets the base year for RFP calcula tions as 2002. 40 CFR 51.910(d). 56



### Th e RFP demonstration must cal culate and exclude the non-cr editable 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 hist oric 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, EP A 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 re vised RFP demonstration contained in 2011
Ozone SIP Revisions. This revised demonstration incorporates the invent ory 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 curre ntly 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 descrip tion of each line in Table G-2.

As shown in Table G-2, the SJV 2007 8-H our 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 con tingency 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 per cent reserve in each milestone year.TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### 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%

NO

x

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 97TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 98 

### T ABLE 

### 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-30TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### T ABLE 

### 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%

NO

x

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 99TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 100 

### T ABLE 

### 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



### T ABLE 

### 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 (lin e 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 

### T ABLE 

### 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 MV CP for on-road vehicles that must be excluded in the RFP demonstration per CAA section 182(b)(1)(D).
These numbers are calculated usin g 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 targ et is calculated as MSY’s Basis for reductions (line F) reduced by th e 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 NO

x 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 NO

x 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 pr ovided by substitution (line K).

M NO

x Baseline The total summer season daily NO

x 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 (lin e 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 

### T ABLE 

### 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 MV CP limit for on-road vehicles that must be excluded in the RFP demonstration per CAA section 182(b)(1)(D). These nu mbers are calculated using the EMFAC2007 according to a method described in Ap pendix 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 cu rrent MSY’s adjustment (line O on Table G-1) and the previous MSYs adjustment (line O on Table G-1).

R Adjusted NO

x Baseline Baseline emissions with the uncred itable 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 MV CP (line Q).

S Change in NO

x since 2002 Calculated as 2002 Baseline with uncreditable reductions removed (line P for 2002) minus current MSY’s Adjusted NO

x baseline (line R).

T Percent change in NO

x since 2002 Percentage change in NO

x emissions since 2002. Ca lculated as the current MSY’s Change in NO

x since 2002 (line S) divi ded by the current MSY’s adjusted NO

x baseline (line R).

U Percent NO

x reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution through last milestone year The cumulative NO

x reductions used for VOC substitution. The NO

x 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 NO

x since 2002 used for VOC substitution (line U) and the previous MSY’s Change in NO

x since 2002 used for VOC substitution in the milestone year (line V)

V Percent NO

x reductions
since 2002 available for
RFP substitution in milestone year Remaining NO

x reductions that are available for VOC substitution. Calculated as the current MSY’s Percent change in NO

x since 2002 (line T) minus the current MSY Percent NO

x reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution and contingency through the last milestone year (line U).

X Percent change in NO

x since 2002 used for VOC
substitution in this milestone year Equal to the current MSY’s Percent act ual (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 NO

x reduction available this milestone year after providing the cumulative VOC substitutions. Calculated as the current
MSY’s Percent NO

x reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution (line V) minus the current MSY’s Percent change in NO

x 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 Strategie s 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 measur es (TCM) sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicl e 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 requir es 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 re sidential areas and should avoi d measures that increase or relocate emissions and congestion rather than reduce them.”

EPA believes that it is appropriate to trea t the three required el ements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth, a ttainment of the RFP re duction, and attainment of the ozone standard) as separa ble. EPA has historically interp reted the first element of this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the requi rement by demonstrating that emissions from
motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year. General Preamble at 13522. 60



### 2. Transportation Control Strategies and TC M to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT
Increases and to Provide for RFP and Atta inment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

Information in 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions repr oduced in Table H-1 below shows that onroad mobile source emissions of VOC and NO
x 

### 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 comp liance 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 lis ted 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) approv al of Illinois’ vehicle m iles 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 nona ttainment 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

NO
x 

### 229 183 153 115 91 69

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



### 3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Because VOC and NO
x 

### 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 stra tegies or TCM to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT or vehicle trips; therefor e, we propose to find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets the first provision of C AA 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 he ld that, with respect to the requi rement to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles travel ed or the number of ve hicle trips, section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requires States to adopt transportation control st rategies and measures whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle miles traveled not increased, even when aggr egate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for rehearing on th is 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 interpre tation for the reasons set forth in the Agency’s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by th e court. If the court denies the Agency’s petition for rehearing and issues its mandate befo re 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 fi rst 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 em issions growth) of sec tion 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan’s failure to include sufficient transportati on 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 ra ther 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 reas onable 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 stra tegies and TCM as necessary to provide (along with other meas ures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement.

In discussed in sections II.C. and II.F. a bove, we have determined that the SJV 2007 8- Hour Ozone SIP provides for the implementa tion of all RACM, incl uding all reasonably available transportation control measures, and provides for expedi tious attainment of the 1997 8- hour ozone standard. Therefore, we propose to fi nd that SIP meets the third provision of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A); that is, to include TCM to the extent need ed 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 attainme nt) because the plan revision does no t contain adopted control measures or
written commitments to enforceable cont rol measures that fully satisfy th e 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 Ad vanced 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 el ectric utility and industrial a nd commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of NO
x 

### to burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, or ethanol (or a comparably low polluting fuel), or use advan ced control technology (suc h as catalytic control technology or other comparably effective cont rol methods). These requirements must be submitted 3 years and be effectiv e 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 shou ld generally be considered as any combustion equipment used to produce steam and would generall y not include a process heater that transfers heat from combustion gases to pr ocess streams, a waste heat rec overy boiler that is used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of proces s equipment such as a combustion turbine, or a recovery furnace that is used to recover process chemicals. It al so does not include boilers used primarily for residential space and/or water heating. General Preamble at 13523.

Only boilers that actually emit mo re than 25 tons per year of NO
x 

### 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 gene rally have the potential to exceed the 25-tonsper-year limit depending on the fuel type. A sour ce with these high rate d heat inputs should
therefore be considered affected unless its federally enforceable permit specifically restricts NO
x 

### , 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 NO
x 

### 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 catal ytic reduction (SCR). SCR is a post-combustion control technology that reduces NO
x 

### 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 Tec hnology for Boilers Requirements in the SJV
2007 Ozone Plan

The 2007 Ozone Plan addresses the CAA sec tion 182(e)(3) requirements on page 2-9 and concludes that existing Di strict boiler rules meet this CAA requirement:

District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 address NO
x 

### emission limits for the boilers in this category. Most of the boilers unde r Rules 4305 and 4306 are fired on natural gas and therefore satisfy the requiremen t of paragraph (A) above. Liquid-fuel fired boilers are also addressed by those rules and the applicable NO
x 

### 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 paragra ph (B) above. Solid-fuel fired boilers are addressed by Rule 4352 and the applicable NO
x 

### 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 sa tisfy 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 NO
x 

### emissions from boilers that are potentially subject to the require ments 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 gene rator, 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 li quid fuel-fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The NO
x 

### 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 technol ogies. See “Alternative Control Techniques Document--NO
x 

### 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 revisi on 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 a pproved Rule 4320 into the SIP on March 25, 2011
at 76 FR 16696.

Rule 4307 “Boilers, Steam Generators, a nd 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 pro cess heater with a total rated heat input greater than 2.0 MMBtu

64 We have previously found that the District’s boile r rules, in combination with the its new source review permitting program, ensure that all existing boilers that emit 25 tpy or more of NO

x or any new or modified boilers that have the potential to emit 25 tpy of NO

x 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 Ge nerators 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 sec tion 182(b)(1) RACT) into the SIP on January 13, 2010 at 75 FR 1715. On May 19, 2011, the District slight ly 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, a nd 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 pro cess heater with a total rated heat input greater than 0.075 MMBtu per hour but less than 2.0 MMBtu per hour. EP A approve Rule 4308 (revised December 17, 2009) as a SIP revisions (and as meeting CAA s ection 182(b)(1) RACT) into the SIP on January 31, 2011 at 76 FR 5276.

Boiler subject to Rules 4307 and 4308 are too sm all to have the potential to emit 25 tpy
or more of NO
x 

### . An uncontrolled 5.0 MMBtu gas- or liqui d-fuel boiler would need to emit at a
rate of 1.14 lbs of NO
x 

### per MMBtu burned to emit 25 tpy of NO
x 

### (25 tpy x 2000 lb/ton divided by 365 days per year x 24 hours per day x 5 MM BTU/hr). According to Table 4-7 in the 1994 ACT, uncontrolled NO
x 

### emissions rates for gas and liqui d fuel boilers range from 0.06
lb/MMBtu to 0.79 MMBtu.

Rule 4352 “Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, St eam 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 mo re than 10 tons per year of NO
x 

### or VOC. We approved Rule 4352 into the California SIP on October 1, 2010. In th at action, we determined that the District had failed to demonstrate that the rule provide d for the implementation of RACT as required by CAA section 182(b)(2); however, we also dete rmined that rule’s emissions limits were sufficiently stringent to nece ssitate the use of the advan ced technologies required by CAA section 182(e)(3). All units subjec t 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 NO
x 

### emission limits in the revised rule effectively require operation of Selective Noncatalytic Reducti on (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 NO
x 

### emission reductions comparable to combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers.

According to information in the RACT/B ACT/LAER Clearinghouse, recent Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits contai n emission limits for coal-fired boilers ranging from 0.067 lbs/MMBtu (for large coal-f ired boilers with SCR and low-NO
x 

### burner technology) to 0.1 lbs/MMBtu (for medium-sized coal-fired boilers with SNCR). These limits reflect Best Available Control Technology (BAC T) determinations under the PSD program. According to the 1994 ACT for ICI boilers (Tables 2-6), wood-fire d watertube boilers with SCR can achieve NO
x 

### emissions of 0.22 lb/MMBtu. The 1994 ACT does not contain emissions levels for wood-fired
FBC boilers with SCR but states that th is type of unit with SNCR can achieve NO
x 

### emission limits ranging from 0.03 to 0.20 lb/MMBtu. Additiona lly, a permitted biomass facility in CA that operates a low temperature SCR has a similar emi ssion limit in its permit as biomass facilities with SNCR (approximately 0.1 lbs/MMBtu).

EPA- Region 9 Page 108TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### Our review of these emissi on 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 S CR control for circulating fluidized bed coal-fired
boilers of less than 50 MW elect ric generation capacity. For coal-f ired 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 si ze. The emission levels achieved by SNCR control systems are also ge nerally comparable to the uncontrolled NO
x 

### 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 syst ems consistently achi eve up to 80 percent
NO
x 

### emission reductions and are compatible with al most all solid fuel-fired boiler operations, while other controls may in some cases be sens itive to catalyst poiso ning and other technical
constraints. As to boilers that emit above 25 tpy of NO
x 

### , we note as a practical matter that only existing boilers in SJV are like ly to be constrained by the NO
x 

### 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 c ontrol technology requirement s of the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) or PSD permit pr ograms. 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 cas e-by-case basis under the NNSR or PSD permit programs. See
75 FR 60623.

New and modified boilers that will emit or ha ve the potential to emit 25 tpy or more of
NO
x 

### 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 ach ievable emissions re ductions 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 109TSD 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 measur es consistent with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional cont rols to be implemented in the event the area
fails to meet a RFP milestone or fails to atta in by its attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or meas ures 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 furt her action by the State or EPA See 68 FR 32802, 32837 and 70 FR 71612, 71650. Contingency measur es should submitted along with the attainment demonstration which was due by J une 15, 2007 for areas designated in 2004. See 70 FR 71612, 71651.

Additional guidance on the CAA contingency meas ure 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 emissi ons reductions is generally acceptable to offset
emission increases while States are correcti ng 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 NO
x 

### to meet the contingency measure requirement. General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. States may also use a combination of VOC
and NO
x 

### reductions.

EPA has also provided guidance that continge ncy 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 measur es to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measure requirements. Th is 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 approa ch has been approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indi ana portion of the Ch icago area 15 percent rate of progress (ROP) plan); 62 FR 66279 (Dece mber 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 a nd Connecticut 1-hour ozone attain ment 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 m easures 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 wh ich anticipate developm ent of new control techniques or improvement of existing control techniques, and an attainment demonstration based on such provisions,” if the State meets cer tain 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 th e anticipated technologies approved under section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. Th ese contingency measures must be submitted no later than three years before proposed implemen tation 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 descri bed in Section 11.6. of the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy as upda ted on February 1, 2008. California revised its contingency measure provisions in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A.

To provide for contingency measures for failu re to make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus
NO
x 

### reductions in the RFP demonstration. See 2 011 Ozone SIP Revision, Attachment A, p. A-3.
See also Table J-1 below a nd Table G-2 in this TSD.

To provide in part for contingency measures fo r failure to attain, the SIP relies in part on
additional incremental emissions reductions resu lting from fleet turnover in the 2024. For SJV, these values are 2 tpd NO
x 

### and less than 0.5 tpd VOC. S ee 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 measur es 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 NO
x 

### 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 th e 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 afte r the attainment year) from the continuing implementation of
both on- and –off road motor vehicle controls ma y be used to meet the contingency measure

EPA- Region 9 Page 111TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 112 

### requirement for failure to attain. For th e SJV, these reductions are 2 tpd of NO
x 

### 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 atta inment 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 measur es 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 continge ncy 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 a nd 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 disapp rove 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



## T ABLE 

## J-1
Excess NO

x 

## 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

NO
x 

### 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 113TSD 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 re ducing 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 wi ll 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 Federa l Highway Administration (F HWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EP A’s transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. U nder this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and main tenance 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 demonstrat ion 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 SI P. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should establish budgets fo r 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 attain ment and RFP plans should establish budgets for
NO
x 

### and VOC. See 40 CF R § 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. Subm itted budgets that have not been found to be adequate or approved may not be used in conform ity determinations. In order for us to find the budgets adequate and approvable, the submitta l must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) a nd 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 attain ment and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

T he SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 2007 included budgets for VOC and NO
x 

### 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 a nd CARB Staff Report, Appendix D (updating MVEB for Madera and San Joaquin Counties).

C ARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Jo aquin Valley and their documentation in Appendices A and C, respectively, of the 2011 Oz one SIP Revisions. See Tables K-1 and K-2 below. The updated MVEB are for NO
x 

### 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 analys is 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 114TSD 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 Novemb er 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 s ubtracting reductions from certain pre-Plan measures (“existing meas ures”) 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 rounde d to the next highest tenth of a ton.

E xisting measures are:

• 

### AB 1493 Green House Gas Standards (NO
x 

### and VOC)

• 

### On-Road Portion of the Carl Moyer Program (NO
x 

### and VOC)

• 

### SJVAPCD’s Rule 9310 – School Buses (NO
x 

### only)

N ew measures are:

• 

### SJVAPCD Rule 9410 Employer Ba sed Trip Reduction (NO
x 

### and VOC)

• 

### Smog Check Improvements (Low pressure evap, cutpoints, light and medium duty diesels, smoke test) (NO
x 

### and VOC)

• 

### Reformulated Gasoline (VOC only)

• 

### Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Model (NO
x 

### 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, a nd 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 B udgets,” 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 cons istent with the State’s RFP dem onstrations for milestone years 2011, 2014, and 2017 and were based on control measur es, 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 curre ntly being used by the MPOs and DOT in

EPA- Region 9 Page 115TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



### transportation conformity determinations. EP A’s proposed approval of the revised budgets submitted in August 2011 does not affects the adequ acy status of these budgets. They remain adequate for transportation conformity purpos es until EPA either finds replacement budgets adequate or a final action approving re placement 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 y ear 2008 and thus the budget did not meet the transportation conformity rule’s adequacy criteri a 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 w ith a number of commitments for future rule adoption that lack specificity. As such, the SJV MPOs would not ha ve been able to accurately quantify future
emission reductions associated with the co mmitments. 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’ a pprovability, EPA has evaluated the revised budgets using our adequacy crite ria in 40 CFR § 93.318(e)(4) and (5 ). As documented in Table K-3 below, we found that they meet each adequ acy 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 Revision s 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 th at they are consistent with the attainment and RFP demonstrations, were ba sed on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented and meet all other applicable st atutory and regulatory requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in §93.118(e)(4) an d(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 fi nalized, 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 ve hicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and comp ared 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 relate d to the in-use truck and bus rule, some of which may be included CARB’s upcoming re vision to the EMFAC model, EMFAC2011) the
MPOs will need to show the off-model emissi on reductions associated with the individual control measures incorpor ated into the budgets, from CARB, for the appropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations so that they ca n include these reductions in regional emissions

EPA- Region 9 Page 116TSD 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 transporta tion conformity determinations.TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011Table K-1Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011(tons per average summer day)Year20112014201720202023CountyROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxFresno14.336.210.730.09.322.68.317.78.013.5Kern (SJV)12.750.39.742.78.731.78.225.17.918.6Kings2.810.72.18.91.86.71.75.31.64.0Madera3.49.32.57.72.25.82.04.71.93.6Merced5.119.93.716.73.212.42.99.92.87.4San Joaquin11.124.68.420.57.215.66.412.46.310.0Stanislaus8.516.96.413.95.610.65.08.44.76.4Tulare8.816.06.713.25.810.15.38.14.96.2EPA-Region 9Page 118TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011Table K-2Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011(tons per average summer day)Year20112014201720202023CountyROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxFresnoBaselineEMFAC200715.6251.8713.0440.6711.1832.419.64.25.949.0822.89Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.030.000.050.000.130.000.110.000.10State Reductions0.010.100.010.100.010.070.000.000.010.01New measuresLocal Reductions0.150.050.290.270.200.220.270.180.250.15State Reductions1.2015.512.1010.301.689.421.157.960.889.15Total14.2736.1710.6429.959.2922.578.2117.697.9513.49Budget14.336.210.730.09.322.68.317.78.013.5Kern(SJV)BaselineEMFAC200715.7686.6913.5670.7711.6755.7110.3644.649.4437.62Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.020.000.040.000.090.000.080.000.07State Reductions0.010.120.010.120.010.090.000.000.000.00New measuresLocal Reductions0.100.040.210.190.140.160.190.130.180.10State Reductions3.0136.293.6827.762.8523.782.0119.391.4318.86Total12.6350.229.6642.658.6631.608.1625.067.8318.58Budget12.750.39.742.78.731.78.225.17.918.6EPA-Region 9Page 119TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA-Region 9Page 120Table K-2Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011(tons per average summer day)Year2014 2017 2020 20232011County ROG NOxROG NOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxKingsBaselineEMFAC20073.3417.282.7513.532.3110.522.008.491.817.29Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.010.000.010.000.020.000.020.000.02State Reductions0.000.030.000.030.000.020.000.000.000.00New measuresLocal Reductions0.020.010.050.040.030.040.040.030.040.02State Reductions0.576.620.694.560.513.830.363.20.263.34Total2.7410.622.008.891.766.621.65.241.513.91Budget2.810.72.18.91.86.71.75.31.64.0MaderaBaselineEMFAC20073.6813.110.000.012.598.542.287.222.136.49Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.010.000.010.000.020.000.020.000.02State Reductions0.000.020.000.020.000.020.000.000.000.00New measuresLocal Reductions0.020.010.050.040.030.040.040.030.040.02State Reductions0.363.850.562.80.452.680.342.550.272.92Total3.309.232.437.662.105.791.94.621.813.53Budget3.49.32.57.72.25.82.04.71.93.6TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA-Region 9Page 121Table K-2Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011(tons per average summer day)Year2014 2017 2020 20232011County ROG NOxROG NOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxMercedBaselineEMFAC20076.2031.380.000.034.2119.243.6315.703.3213.8Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.010.000.020.000.040.000.040.000.03State Reductions0.010.050.010.050.000.030.000.000.000.00New measuresLocal Reductions0.040.020.090.080.060.070.090.060.080.05State Reductions1.1411.451.337.841.016.720.705.790.536.33Total5.0119.853.6416.623.1312.382.849.822.717.38Budget5.119.93.716.73.212.42.99.92.87.4SanJoaquinBaselineEMFAC200712.1337.283.0410.538.6423.577.4918.577.216.67Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.030.000.050.000.110.000.100.000.09State Reductions0.010.080.010.080.010.060.000.000.010.01New measuresLocal Reductions0.120.040.240.230.180.190.240.160.220.13State Reductions0.9512.571.639.311.277.700.895.940.716.52Total11.0624.568.3120.427.1815.516.3612.386.269.92Budget11.124.68.420.57.215.66.412.46.310.0TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA-Region 9Page 122Table K-2Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011(tons per average summer day)Year2014 2017 2020 20232011County ROG NOxROG NOxROGNOxROGNOxROGNOxStanislausBaselineEMFAC20079.0024.060.000.016.514.765.711.865.2310.19Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.020.000.030.000.080.000.060.000.06State Reductions0.010.050.010.050.010.030.000.000.000.00New measuresLocal Reductions0.090.030.170.160.120.130.160.100.150.09State Reductions0.467.151.024.60.814.010.583.340.433.65Total8.4516.816.3413.865.5610.514.968.354.656.39Budget8.516.96.413.95.610.65.08.44.76.4TulareBaselineEMFAC20079.2622.410.000.026.714.355.9611.885.4410.24Existing measuresLocal Reductions0.000.020.000.030.000.060.000.050.000.05State Reductions0.010.040.010.040.010.030.000.000.000.00New measuresLocal Reductions0.070.030.140.130.100.110.130.090.120.07State Reductions0.416.420.994.480.814.090.603.680.463.93Total8.7715.906.6213.165.7910.065.238.054.856.19Budget8.816.06.713.25.810.15.38.14.96.2TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011Table K-3Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011Adequacy Review Criteria(40 CFR part 93)Is CriterionSatisfied?Reference in SIP Document/CommentsSec.3.118(e)(4)(i)The plan was endorsed by theGovernor (or designee) andwas subject to a publichearing.YThe November 16, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan was sent byCARB’s Executive Officer, James Goldstene,the Governor’s designee. The transmittalletter indicates that the CARB formally adoptedthe plan on June 14, 2007 through a BoardResolution (07-20). CARB released the plan on May 15, 2007 and requested publiccomments by June 13, 2007 or at the public hearing held on June 14, 2007.The Plan relies on reduction from measuresand commitments in the 2007 State Strategy.The November 16, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the 2007 State Strategy was sent byCARB’s Executive Officer, James Goldstene,the Governor’s designee. The transmittalletter indicates that CARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy for the SIP on September 27,2007. CARB released the 2007 State Strategy on April 26, 2007 and May 7, 2007 andrequested public comments by the public hearing held on September 27, 2007.CARB updated both the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy in the 2011Ozone SIP Revisions. The July 29, 2011 transmittal letter submitting the 2011 Ozone SIPRevisions was sent by CARB’s ExecutiveOfficer, James Goldstene, the Governor’sdesignee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the SIP Revisionon July 21, 2011 through a Board Resolution (11-22). CARB released the plan on June 20,2011 and requested public comments by July 20, 2011 or at the public hearing held on July21 2011.EPA-Region 9Page 123TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011Table K-3Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011Adequacy Review CriteriaIs CriterionSatisfied?Reference in SIP Document/Comments(40 CFR part 93)Sec.93.118(e)(4)(ii)The plan was developedthrough consultation withfederal, state and localagencies; full implementationplan documentation wasprovided and EPA’s statedconcerns, if any, wereaddressed.YThe 2007 Ozone Plan was developed through consultation with the San Joaquin Valleyinteragency consultation working group (the Model Coordinating Committee). Members ofthe consultation group include federal, stateand local agency including EPA, FHWA, FTA,CARB, Caltrans, SJVUAPCD, and each county’s MPO. The 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions andits Appendices A and C which describe the revised MVEB were made available to theMPOs and other agencies for review and comment during the public comment period. EPAreceived a copy of the,the draft SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, draft State Strategy, draft 2009 StateStrategy Update, and the draft 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. It provided comments on the2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. which CARB addressed. CARB also provided additionalinformation supporting the MVEB in CARB 2011 SIP Revision supplement. Furthermore,in response to EPA’s questions, CARB provided additional information via an August 10,2011 letter sent by Lynn Terry. CARB to Deborah Jordan, EPA and emails from Doug Ito toElizabeth Adams on August 9 and 11, 2011. The additional technical clarifications on thebudgets provided in documents attached with these communications answered EPA’squestions.Sec.93.118(e)(4)(iii)The motor vehicle emissionbudgets are clearly identifiedand precisely quantified.YThe revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantifiedin Appendices A and C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and further described inAttachment A of the July 29, 2011 letter and the additional technical information providedby CARB. These budgets reflect control measuresthat were already adopted at the time theCARB adopted the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on July 21, 2011. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,Appendix A, p. 3. CARB did not update theMVEB for 2008 becausethe 2008 budgets areno longer needed for any conformity determination in the SJV. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,Appendix C.EPA-Region 9Page 124TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011Table K-3Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011Adequacy Review CriteriaIs CriterionSatisfied?Reference in SIP Document/Comments(40 CFR part 93)Sec.93.118(e)(4)(iv)The motor vehicle emissionsbudget(s), when consideredtogether with all otheremission sources, is consistentwith applicable requirementsfor reasonable further progressand attainment.YEPA has preliminarily concluded that the revised budgets for the years 2011, 2014, 2017,2020, and 2023 when considered together with all other emission sources and controls, areconsistent with the requirement to demonstrate RFP for 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Thisfinding is based on our review of the RFP demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour OzoneSIP, as revised on July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.G. of this TSD, EPA isproposing to approve the revised RFP demonstration.EPA has concluded that the revised budgets for the year 2023 when considered togetherwith all other emission sources and controlsare consistent with the requirement todemonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. This finding is basedon our review of the updated attainment demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP,as revised on July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.F. of this TSD, EPA is proposingto approve the revised attainment demonstration.Sec.93.118(e)(4)(v)The plan shows a clearrelationship among theemissions budget(s), controlmeasures and the totalemissions inventory.YThe emission inventory for all stationary, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobilesources, and their relation to control measuresand the reductions from existing measures aredescribed in Attachment A of CARB’s Resolution 07-28 dated September 27, 2007 adoptingthe 2007 State Strategy. The reductions from individual existing measures used in thebudgets are also described in more detail in Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B and in TableC.9 in Appendix C to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan as well as in the 2011 Ozone SIP RevisionsSupplement, and additional technical information transmitted from CARB in their August10 letter and emails on August 9th and 11th.EPA-Region 9Page 125TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA-Region 9Page 126Table K-3Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPas Revised on July 21, 2011Adequacy Review Criteria(40 CFR part 93)Is CriterionSatisfied?Reference in SIP Document/CommentsSec.93.118(e)(4)(vi)Revisions to previouslysubmitted control strategy ormaintenance plans explain anddocument any changes to anyprevious submitted budgetsand control measures; impactson point and area sourceemissions; any changes toestablished safety margins (see§ 93.101 for definition), andreasons for the changes(including the basis for anychanges to emission factors orestimates of vehicle milestraveled).YPrior to submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the most recent ozone SIP for the SJVnonattainment area was the SJV 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan. EPA found the budgets from the2004 SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan to adequate in 2005 (70 FR 7734, February 15, 2005). Themotor vehicle emission inventories in the 2004 1-hour ozone SIP are based on theEMFAC2002 motor vehicle emissions model, and motor vehicle emission inventories in theSJV 2007 Ozone Plan and subsequent updates were prepared using the most recent versionof the model, EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA for use in SIPs andconformity determinations on January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464). This notice approvingEMFAC2007 details the basis for the changes to the emission factors.The MVEB being reviewed here are for the 8-hour ozone standard and do not constitute arevision to the MVEB previously submitted in the 2004 Ozone Plan because that Planaddressed different ozone standards.CARB submitted revisions to the motor vehicle emission budgets in the SJV 2007 OzonePlan as part of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. The revisions removed some controlmeasures that were includedin the prior RFP and attainment budgets (e.g. SJV’s IndirectSource Rule), included revisions to the Heavy Duty Diesel Truck inventory using CARB’sHeavy Duty Truck Model and adjusted the reductions associated with smog check and SJVRule 9310 to reflect updated VMT data from the SJV MPOs. Emission reductions associatedwith the SJV Trip Reduction Rule were also adjusted to reflect actual reductions.Sec.93.118(e)(5)EPA has reviewed the State’scompilation of publiccomments and response tocomments that are required tobe submitted with anyimplementation plan.YThe 2007 Ozone Plan contains public comments and the District’s responses in appendicesG and L. Specifically, appendix G includescomments and responses from the District’sseries of Town Hall meetings held from July 26-28, 2006. Appendix L includes commentsand responses from the District’s public workshops and public comment periods on the draft2007 Ozone Plan. Additional verbal comments were received during the adoption publichearings held by the District and CARB andare also included as attachments to theNovember 2007 SIP submittal. EPA provided comments on the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisionsbut CARB received no other comments. We have reviewed the compilation of commentsand responses and find the responses to be acceptable. No issues that might have affectedour 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 App licable to Extreme Ozone
Nonattainment Areas

In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, subpart D of the CAA includes other provisions appli cable to extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. We briefly describe these provisions a nd their current status below for informational purposes only.

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspect ion and Maintenance Programs

CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as serious or above to implemen t 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 th e 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 standa rd, the San Joaquin Valley was covered under the federal reformulat ed 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 stati onary source (with respect to ozone) anywhere
in the nonattainment area. See also CAA secti on 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 pr ovided in the preamble to the 8-hour ozone implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612 at 71671-71684.

EPA approved the SJVAPCD’s new source revi ew rules, Rules 2201 “New and Modified Stationary Source Review” and Rule 2020 “Exempti ons,” 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 127TSD 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 Ca lifornia 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 progr am or programs that will result in at least equiva lent 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 Califor nia’s low-emissions vehicle program achieved emission reductions at least as large as the fe deral 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 operator s 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 nonattai nment 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 Safe ty Code Sections 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures and perfor mance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline marketing operations, including tran sfer and storage operations. Stat e law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor re covery systems, to iden tify 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 enfor ced by SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest versions of which were approved by in to the SIP on October 30, 2009. See 74 FR 56120.

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires th at all ozone nonattainment ar eas classified as serious or above implement measures to enhance and improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of ozone, NO
x 

### , and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NO
x 

### and VOC.

The SJVAPCD’s Annual Air Quality Monitori ng Network Plan (June 30, 2010) describes the steps the State has taken to address the re quirements 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 128TSD 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 Sco tt 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 attain ment date, each major stationary
source of VOC and NO
x 

### located in the area shall pay a fee to the State as a penalty for such failure for each calendar year be ginning after the attainment date , until the area is redesignated as
an attainment area for ozone. States are not yet required to impleme nt 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 MeasuresTSD 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 measur es 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 t hus 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 Stat e’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 NO
x 

### in the SJV (e.g.,
asbestos air toxic control measur e), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the SJV (e.g., test methods).

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorant s. 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-1TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-2 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Trichlor oethylene 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 applicableTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-3 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 SO 2 . 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 Ga soline, 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, 229 2.5 , 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 12/12/91 FuelsTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-4 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-5 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Polluta nts. 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 FuelsTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-6 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Alterna tive 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 productsTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-7 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Low Emission Vehicle Stan dards 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, 226 2.5 , 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 FuelsTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-8 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 applicableTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-9 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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, 226 2.5 , 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 - LV P-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-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-10 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Statewid e 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 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Pe troleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requ irement 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, 226 2.5 , 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, 8023 0, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 8030 0, 80310, 80311, 80320,
80330 03/23/00 Not applicableTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-11 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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, 226 2.5 , 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 Engine s "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 Elect ric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 On-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-12 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Guid elines 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 Se rvice 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, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 FuelsTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-13 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 incor porated 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 inco rporated 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-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-14 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 PM 2.5 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 Stat ewide 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, 9451 0, 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-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-15 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

California Reformulated Ga soline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 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, 9310 2.5 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 Sy stem 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 roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-16 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Ocea n-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 Se rvice 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-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-17 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Off-Highway Recreational Ve hicles 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 Guid elines 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-roadTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011



## B. State Rules that Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley

A substantial number of the measures adopt ed by CARB since 1990 do not affect VOC
or NO
x 

### emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. Thes e types of measures include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area bou ndary designations, and controls for pollutants
other than VOC or NO
x 

### . Appendix Table A-2 provides a list of these measures.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
That Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## 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 Trichlor oethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

EPA-Region 9 Page A-18TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-19 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
That Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## 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 SO 2 . 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 measureTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-20 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
That Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## 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 NO

x 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 Polluta nts. 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 measureTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-21 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
That Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## 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 measureTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-22 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
That Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## 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, 8023 0, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 8030 0, 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 NO

x 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 measureTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-23 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
That Do Not Address VOC or NO

x 

## 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 PM 2.5 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 measureTSD 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 Ta ble A-3 is a list of these revisions.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 NO

x 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 Ga soline, 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-24TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-25 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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, 226 2.5 , 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, 226 2.5 , 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 226 2.5 (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 Requ irement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , 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, 226 2.5 , 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, 226 2.5 , 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, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rulesTSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-26 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Ga soline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 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 Pe troleum 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 ExpiredTSD 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 measur es adopted by CARB since 1990 for on-road
and off-road sources.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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-27TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-28 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Standa rds 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 Stan dards 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 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 NO

x 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 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-4 

## On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine s "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 Elect ric 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 Se rvice 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 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Commer cial 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 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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-F ueled 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, 21 80.1, 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 Se rvice 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



### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Gard en 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 Ve hicles 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-33TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-34 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Statewid e Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98

Modifications to the Stat ewide 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 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Ocea n-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 conten t of consumer products for more than 20 years and continues to tighten st andards and regulate more products . Appendix Table A-6 is a list of CARB’s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A-6 

## Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the
California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorant s. 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-36TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-37 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 - LV P-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, 9451 0, 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 Safe ty Code Sections 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures and perfor mance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline marketing operations, including tran sfer and storage operations. Stat e law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods. The installation a nd operation of CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVAP CD Rules 4621 and 4622. Appendix Table A-7 is a list of rulemaking actions take n by CARB since 1990 that addr ess vapor recovery equipment certification, defects, and/or test methods.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 inco rporated 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-38TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-39 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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/ATSD 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 on e of the categories of measures listed in Appendix Tables A-2 through A-7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A-8.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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 Guid elines 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. NO

x 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-40TSD for the Proposed Action
on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP September 8, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-41 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### 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. NO

x 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. NO

x 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 Guid elines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, &
94207-942142 10/19/06 Addition of 2013 standards NO

x and VOC standard s 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 RulesTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4101Visible Emissions2/17/20052/17/20052/17/200570 FR 46770(8/11/05)4103Open Burning4/15/20104/15/20104/15/20105/17/2007NPR: 76 FR 40660(7/11/11)74 FR 57907(11/10/09)Control strategy measure.4104Reduction of AnimalMatter12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199275 FR 10691(3/9/10)4105Commercial OffsiteMulti-User Hazardousand Non-HazardousWaste DisposalFacilities12/17/1992N/AN/AN/A4106Prescribed Burning6/21/20016/21/20016/21/200167 FR 8894(2/27/02)4201Particulate matterconcentrations12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199267 FR 16026(4/4/02)4202Particulate matteremission rates12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199265 FR 21347(4/21/00)4203Particulate MatterEmissions fromIncineration ofCombustible Refuse12/17/199212/17/1992N/Ano action4204Cotton Gin2/17/20052/17/20052/17/200571 FR 65740(11/08/06)EPA- Region 9Page B-1TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-2APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4301Fuel BurningEquipment12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199264 FR 26876(5/18/1999)4302Incinerator Burning12/16/199312/16/199312/16/199364 FR 45170(8/19/1999)4303Orchard Heaters12/16/199312/16/199312/16/199364 FR 45170(8/19/1999)4304Equipment TurningProcedures for Boilers,Steam Generators, andProcess Heaters10/19/199510/19/199510/19/199566 FR 5766(11/16/01)4305Boilers, SteamGenerators, and ProcessHeaters - Phase 28/21/20038/21/20038/21/200369 FR 28061(5/18/04)4306Boilers, SteamGenerators, and ProcessHeaters - Phase 310/16/200810/16/200810/16/200875 FR 1715(1/13/10)Control strategy measure4307Boilers, SteamGenerators, and ProcessHeaters - 2.0 MMBTU/hr to 5.0MMBTU/hr5/19/201110/16/200810/16/200875 FR 1715(1/13/10)Control strategy measureTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-3APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4308Boilers, SteamGenerators, and ProcessHeaters - 0.75 MMBTU/hr to 2.0MMBTU/hr12/17/200912/17/200912/17/200976 FR 5276(1/31/11)Control strategy measure4309Dryers, Dehydrators andOvens12/15/200512/15/200512/15/200572 FR 29887(5/30/07)4311Flares6/18/20096/18/2009NPR:6/18/20096/20/2002NPR - 76 FR52623 (8/23/11)68 FR 8835(2/26/03)Control strategy measure4313Lime Kilns3/27/20033/27/20033/27/200368 FR 52510(9/4/2003)4320Advanced EmissionReduction Option forBoilers10/16/200810/16/200810/16/200876 FR 16696(3/25/11)Control strategy measure4351Boilers, SteamGenerators, and ProcessHeaters - RACT8/21/20038/21/20038/21/200369 FR 28061(5/18/04)4352Solid Fuel Fired Boilers,Steam Generators, andProcess Heaters5/18/20065/18/20065/18/200675 FR 60623(10/1/10)4354Glass Melting Furnaces5/19/20119/16/20109/16/201076 FR 53640,(8/29/11)Control strategy measureTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-4APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4401Steam-Enhanced CrudeOil Production Wells6/16/20116/16/2011NPR: 6/16/1112/14/2006NPR: 76 56134 (9-12-11)75 FR 3996(1/26/10)4402Crude Oil ProductionSumps12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199276 FR 39777(7/7/11)4403Components ServingLight Crude Oil orGases at Light CrudeOil and Gas Production4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14652(3/23/06)4404Heavy Oil Test Station– Kern12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199275 FR 10691(3/9/10)4405Oxides of NitrogenEmissions from ExistingSteam Generators(Central and WesternKern County)12/17/1992not submittedN/AN/A4406Sulfur Compounds fromOilfield SteamGenerators - Kern12/17/1992not submittedN/AN/A4407In-situ CombustionWell Vents5/19/19945/19/19945/19/199460 FR 12121(3/6/95)4408Glycol DehydrationSystems12/19/200212/19/200212/19/200268 FR 51187(8/26/03)TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-5APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4409Components at LightCrude Oil or Gases atLight Crude Oil and GasProduction4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14653(3/23/06)4451Valves, Pressure ReliefValves, Flanges,Threaded Connectionsand Process Drains atPetroleum Refineriesand Chemical Plants4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14652(3/23/06)4452Pump and CompressorSeals at PetroleumRefiners4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14653(3/23/06)4453Refinery VacuumProducing Devices orSystems12/19/199212/19/1992N/A73 FR 48(1/02/08)withdrawn4454Refinery ProcessTurnaround12/19/199212/19/1992N/A73 FR 48(1/02/08)withdrawn4455Components atRefineries4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14652(3/23/06)4501Alternate Compliancefor BARCT6/17/19996/17/1999N/Ano actionTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-6APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4550ConservationManagement Practices8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 7683(2/14/06)4565Biosolids, AnimalManure, and PoultryLitter Operations3/15/20073/15/2007NPR:3/15/200776 FR 56706(9/14/11)Control strategy measures4566Organic Waste8/18/2011N/AN/AN/AControlstrategymeasure4570Confined AnimalFacilities10/21/201010/21/2010NPR:10/21/20106/18/200976 FR 56706(9/14/11)75 FR 2079(1/14/10)Control strategy measures4601Architectural Coatings12/17/200912/17/200912/17/200910/31/2001NPR: 76 FR 35167(6/16/11)69 FR 34(1/02/04)Control strategy measure4602Motor Vehicle andMobile EquipmentCoating Operations9/17/20099/17/20099/17/200912/20/2001NPR: 76 FR 3214(6/3/11)67 FR 42999(6/26/02)4603Surface Coating ofMetal Parts andProducts9/17/20109/17/20109/17/201010/16/2008NPR: 76 FR 3214(6/3/11)75 FR 4612(1/19/10)TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-7APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4604Can and Coil CoatingOperations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200775 FR 4612(1/19/10)4605Aerospace Assemblyand Component Coating6/16/20116/16/2011NPR: 6/16/119/20/2007NPR: 76 56134 (9-12-11)75 FR 3996(1/26/10)4606Wood Products CoatingOperations10/16/200810/16/200810/16/200874 FR 52894(10/15/09)4607Graphic Arts12/18/200812/18/200812/18/200874 FR 52894(10/15/09)Control strategy measure4610Glass CoatingOperations4/17/20034/17/20034/17/200369 FR 60962(10/14/04)4612Motor Vehicle andMobile EquipmentCoating Operations –Phase 210/21/201010/21/20109/20/200775 FR 4612(1/19/10)4621Gasoline Transfer intoStationary StorageContainers12/20/200712/20/200712/20/200774 FR 56120(10/30/09)4622Gasoline Transfer intoMotor Vehicles12/20/200712/20/200712/20/200774 FR 56120(10/30/09)4623Storage of OrganicLiquids5/19/20055/19/20055/19/200570 FR 53937(9/13/05)Control strategy measureTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-8APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4624Transfer of OrganicLiquids12/20/200712/20/200712/20/200774 FR 52894(10/15/09)Control strategy measure4625Wastewater Separators12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199276 FR 39777(7/7/11)4641Cutback, Slow Cure,and Emulsified AsphaltPaving and MaintenanceOperations12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199275 FR 10691(3/9/10)4642Solid Waste DisposalSite4/16/19984/16/19984/16/199866 FR 38939(7/26/01)4651Soil DecontaminationOperations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 56120(10/30/09)4652Coatings and InkManufacturing12/17/1992not submittedN/AN/ANo sources4653Adhesives9/16/20109/16/20109/20/200774 FR 52894(10/15/09)Control strategy measures4661Organic Solvents9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200775 FR 24406(5/5/2010)Control strategy measure4662Organic SolventDegreasing Operations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 37948(7/30/09)Control strategy measure4663Organic SolventCleaning, Storage, andDisposal9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 37948(7/30/09)Control strategy measureTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-9APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4672Petroleum Solvent DryCleaning Operations12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199275 FR 10691(3/9/10)4681Rubber TireManufacturing12/16/199312/16/199312/16/199363 FR 43881(8/17/98)4682Polystyrene,Polyethylene, andPolypropylene ProductsManufacturing9/20/20079/20/20079/20/2007NPR: 76 FR 41745(7/15/11)Control strategy measure4684Polyester ResinOperations8/18/20116/16/2011NPR: 8/18/119/20/2007NPR: 76 FR 56132(9/12/11)75 FR 3996(1/26/10)4691(461.02)Vegetable OilProcessing Operations12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199259 FR 2535(1/18/94)4692CommercialCharbroiling9/17/20099/17/20099/17/20093/21/2002NPR: 76 FR 38340(6/30/11)68 FR 33005(6/03/03)4693Bakery Ovens5/16/20025/16/20025/16/200269 FR 22441(4/26/04)4694Wine Fermentation andStorage Tanks8/18/201112/15/200512/15/2005no actionControl strategy measureTSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-10APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments4695Brandy and Wine Aging9/17/20099/17/20099/17/200976 FR 470761(8/4/11)Control strategy measure4701I/C Engines - Phase 18/21/20038/21/20038/21/200369 FR 28061(5/18/04)4702I/C Engines - Phase 28/18/20111/18/20071/18/200773 FR 1819(1/10/08)Control strategy measure4703Stationary Gas Turbines9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 53888(10/21/09)Control strategy measure4801Sulfur Compounds12/17/199212/17/199212/17/1992no action4802Sulfuric Acid Mist12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199264 FR 30396(6/08/99)4901Wood BurningFireplaces and WoodBurning Heaters10/16/200810/16/200810/16/200874 FR 57907(11/10/09)4902Residential WaterHeaters3/19/20093/19/20093/19/200975 FR 24408(5/5/10)Control strategy measure4905Natural Gas-fired, fantype, residential centralfurnaces10/20/200510/20/200510/20/200572 FR 29886(5/30/07)8011Fugitive Dust GeneralRequirements8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)TSD for the Proposed Actionon the SJV 2007 Ozone SIPSeptember 8, 2011EPA- Region 9Page B-11APPENDIXTABLEB-1Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District RulesSeptember 8, 2011Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate of MostRecent RuleApprovedFederal RegisterCiteComments8021Construction,Demolition, Excavation,Extraction, and otherEarthmoving Activities8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)8031Bulk Materials8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)8041Carryout and Trackout8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)8051Open Areas8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)8061Paved and UnpavedRoads8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)8071Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment TrafficAreas9/16/20049/16/20049/16/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)8081Agricultural Sources9/16/20049/16/20049/16/200471 FR 8461(2/17/06)9310School Bus9/21/20069/21/20069/21/200675 FR 10420(3/8/10)9410Employer Based TripReduction12/17/200912/17/2009N/Ano actionControl strategy measure. Submitted May17, 2010 (complete June 8, 2010)9510Indirect Source Review12/15/200512/15/200512/15/200576 FR 26609(5/9/11)