# Technical Support Document

and Response s to Comments

Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 

## State Implementation Plan

Air Division U.S. EPA Region 9 September 30, 2011For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Frances Wicher Office of Air Planning (AIR

- 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 972

- 3957 wicher.frances@epa.gov

D ocuments referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for this rulemaking , docket no. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516

, which may be found at www.regulations.gov . Documents that are not available in an electronic format may be found at the address above.

## Table of Contents

i I. Introduction and Background A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate (PM 2.5 ) 1

1. The PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 a. Level and Form of the Standard 1 b. Health Effects 2 c. Revisions to the 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Standards 2 2. Implementing the PM 2.5 NAAQS 2 a. Designations 2 b. PM 2.5 Planning Requirements 3

B. PM 2.5 Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley 5

1. PM 2.5 Levels in the San Joaquin Valley 6 2. Seasonality and Chemical Composition of PM 2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 7 C. California‘s Submittals Constituting the SJV PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan 11

D. Public Notice and H earing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP Submittals 13 1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 13 2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals 14

II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 SIP

A. Emissions Inventories 16 1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 16

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP 17 3. Proposed Actions on Emissions Inventory 18

4. Evalu ation and Conclusions 18 B. Air Quality Modeling 22 1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 22 2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan 22 a. Conceptual Description 24 b. Modeling Protocol 25 c. Air Quality Model Selection 27 d. Episode Selection 28 e. Domain, Domain Size, and Spatial Resolution 29 f. Initial and Boundary Conditions 31 g. Meteorological Model 31 h. Meteorological Model Performance 34 i. Emissions Inventory 36 j. Air Quality Model Performance 37

## Table of Contents

ii k. Modeled Attainm ent Test 40 l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 42 m. Weight of Evidence 43

3. Conclusions 45

4. Pollutant Ratios Used to Determine PM 2.5 Equivalency 46 5. Effect of Inventory Changes on the Air Quality Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations 48

C. P M 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 5 1 1. Requirements for the Control of PM 2.5 Precursors 51

2. Identification of PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and EPA‘s Evaluation 52

3. Conclusions 67 D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology 69 1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 69 2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP 70 a. District RACM/RACT Analysis 71 b. Local Jurisdictio ns‘ RACM Analysis 72 c. State‘s RACM Analysis 74 3. Proposed Actions on the RACM/RACT Demonstration 77

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 77

E. Attainment Date Ext ension 79 1. Requirements for Attainment Date Extensions 79 2. Proposed Attainment Date in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan 79

3. Proposed Actions on the Attainment Date Extension 82

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 83 F. Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments 85 1. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments 85 2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy 86 a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 86 b. CARB Measures and Commitments 96 3. Proposed Actions on the Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments 99

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 100 a. Baseline and Control Strategy Measures 100 i. Section 209 Waiver Measures 101 ii. Non

- waiver measu res 105

## Table of Contents

iii b. Enforceable Commitments 105 ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment 108 iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe 109 iv. Summary of Finding on Enforceable Commitments in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP 109 v. Action on Enforceable Commitments to Reduce Emissions and Adopt Specific
Measures 110

G. Attainment Demonstrations 111 1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations 111

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan 111 3. Proposed Actions on the Attainment Demonstrat ion in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan 115

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 115 H. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 117 1. Req uirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 117

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan 118 3. Proposed Actions on the RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan 120

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 120 I. Contingency Measure s 126 1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 126 2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2011 Progress Report 127 a. New Commitment 127 b. General Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration and Post

- 2014 127 c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules/Incentive Funds 128 3. Proposed Actions on the Contingency Measures in the SJV 008 PM 2.5 SIP 130

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 130 a. New Commitment 131 b. General Surplus Reductions in t he RFP Demonstration and Post

- 2014 131 c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules 132 d. Conclusion 133 J. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP 137 1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 137 2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP 138 a. MVEB Submitted in SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan (submitted June 2008) 138 b. Updated MVEB Submitted in 2011 138
3. EPA‘s Actions on the MVEB in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP 141 a. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 141 b. Proposed Action on the MVEBs in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP 141

## Table of Contents

iv c. Final Action on the Revised Update MVEB 142 d. Final Action on the Trading Mechanism 142

III

- Responses to Comments

List of Comment Letters Received 149

A. General Comments 150

B . Emissions Inventory 151 C. Air Quality Modeling 159

D. PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Pre cursors 166 E. Reasonably Available Control Measures 170 Evaluation of potential to advance attainment 177 Conclusion on RACM demonstration 178 F. Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments 179

1. B aseline Measures 179

2. Enforceable Commitments 188 3. Other Control Strategy Comments 204

F. Attainment Date Extension 204

G. Attainment Demonstration 205 H. Reasonable Further Progress 206 I. Contingency Measures 207 J. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 208

K. Miscellaneous Comments 210

Appendix A

– CARB Rules and Measures A. Complete List of State Measures 1

B. State Rules that Do Not Address Direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the San Joaquin Valley 20

C. State Fuel Measures 26

D. State On

- Road Mobile Sources Measures 29

E. State Consumer Product Measures 39 F. State Vapor Rec overy Measures 41

G. Other State Measures 43

Appendix B

– SJVAPCD Rules

## List of Acronyms

v μ: micron (one millionth) AB: California Assembly Bill AERR: Air Emissions Report Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB) APCD: air pollution control district AQMD: air quality management district BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repair CAA: Federal Cle an Air Act as amended in 1990 CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB) CCAQS: Central California Air Quality Study CCR: California Code of Regulations CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inventory System CEID A RS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System CERR: Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality [model] CMB: c hemical mass balance CO: carbon monoxide CPM: condensable particulate matter CRPAQS: California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study District: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Agency DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation EC: elementa l carbon EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency 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 HNO 3 : nitric acid I/C: internal combustion IMS95: 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study (in the San Joaquin Valley) km: kilometer

m: meter

m 3 : cubic meter mb: millibars MCR: mid

- course review MFB: mean fractional bias MFE : mean fractional error MM5: a mesoscale model

## List of Acronyms

vi MMP A : m eteorological m odel p erformance a nalysis MOZART: Model for Ozone And Related C hemical Tracers MPO: metropolitan planning organization MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard NH 3 : ammonia NH 4 NO 3 : ammonium nitrate NO 2 : nitrogen dioxide NO x : oxides of nitrogen NSR: new source review NYQ: not yet quantified O 3 : ozone OC: organic carbon OH: hydroxyl radical OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality PBL: p lanetary b oundary l ayer PM: particulate matter PM 10 : particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM 2.5 PM 2.5 : particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less PMC: coarse particulate matter PMF: positive matrix factorization RACM: reasonably available control me asures RACT: reasonably available control technology RFP : reasonable further progress RMD: Receptor Modeling Documentation RMPA: Regional Modeling Performance Analysis RRF: r elative response factor RTP: regional transportation plan SANDWICH : S ulfate

, adjusted nitrate, derived water, inferred carbonaceous material balance approach SC: South Coast SIP: state implementation plan SJV: San Joaquin Valley SJVAPCD /SJVUAPCD : San Joaquin Valley (Unified) Air Pollution Control District SMAT: Speciated Modeled A ttainment Test SO 2 : sulfur dioxide SOA: secondary organic aerosol STN: Speciation Trends Network SO x : oxides of sulfur TCM: transportation control measures tpd: tons per day TIP: transportation improvement program TSD: technical support document

## List of Acronyms

vii VMT: vehic le miles traveled VOC: volatile organic compounds WOE: weight of evidence

## Technical Support Document and Response to Comments for the Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 

## State Implementation Plan

I. Introduction and Background

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA‘s final rulemaking actions on the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District‘ s 2008 PM 2.5 Plan ( adopted Apr i l 30, 2008 and revised on June 1 7

, 2010 ) and the related portions of the California Air Resources Board‘s State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (adopted with amendments on September 27, 2007

, revised and updated on April 2 4 , 2009 and April 28

, 2011 )

. EPA proposed action on these plans o n November 30

, 2 010 (75 FR 74518) and July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41338). This TSD updates the technical support documents prepared in support of the November 30, 2010 and July 13, 2011 proposals. 1 In this TSD, w e also provide our responses to the comments received on the two proposals.



### A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate (PM 2.5 

### )

1. The PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

a. Level and Form of the Standard On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) to add new annual and 24

- hour standards for PM 2.5 , particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less

. 62 FR 38652. 2 The annual standard s are set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μ/m 3 ), as determined by the 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. The 24

- hour standard s were set at a level of 65 μ/m 3 , as determined by the 3

- year average of the 98th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations

. 40 CFR § 50. 7

.

1 ―Draft Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,‖ Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, November 8, 2010, referred to as the ―2010 Proposal TSD‖ in this document. ― T echnical Support Docume nt for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,‖ Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, June 29, 2011

, referred to as the ―201 1 Proposal TSD‖ in this document.

2 The original annual and daily standards for particulate matter generally less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter (referred to as PM 10 ) were established in 1987. 52 FR 24663 (July 1, 1987). In the 1997 PM NAAQS revision, EPA also revised the standards for PM 10 but these revised PM 10 standards were later vacated by the courts and the 1987 PM 10 standards remained in effect. In the 2006 NAAQS revision, the 24

- hour PM 10 standards were retained but the annual standards were revoked. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The San Joaquin Valley is designated as attainment for the PM 10 NAAQS. See 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2 009).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 2 b. Health Effects

EPA established primary air quality standards for PM 2.5 based on substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to elevated levels of the pollutant

. Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant correlations between elevated PM 2.5 levels and premature mortality

. Other important health effects associated with PM 2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, absences from school or work, and restri cted activity days), changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of cardiovascular health

. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM 2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children

. See

, EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter , No. EPA/600/P

– 99/002aF and EPA/600/P

– 99/002bF, October 2004

. Attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards is estimated to lead to reductions in health impacts, including tens of t housands fewer premature deaths each year, thousands fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits each year, hundreds of thousands fewer absences from work and school, and hundreds of thousands fewer respiratory illnesses in children annually

. See 7 2 FR 20586, 20587 (April 25, 2007)

.

c

. Revisions to the 24

- Hour PM 2.5 Standard

s In October 2006, EPA completed another review of the NAAQS for PM. With regard to the primary standards, the 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard s are strengthened to a level of 35 μ/m 3

, based on the 3

- year average of the 98th percentile of 24

- hour concentrations

. The annual standard s remain unchanged. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) . Attainment of the 2006 PM 2.5 standards is estimated to lead to additional reductions in health impacts over the 1997 standard , including approximately 1,200 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths each year, 1,630 fewer hospital admissions and 1,200 fewer emergency room visits for asthma each year, 350,000 fewer absences from work and school, and 155,300 fewer respira tory illnesses in children annually

. 72 FR 20586, 20587

.

2. Implementing the PM 2.5 NAAQS

a. Designations The process for designating areas either attaining or no t attaining following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is found in CAA section 107(d)

. Under this section, each state g overnor or t ribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas

, to EPA

. Under CAA section 107, state and t ribal recommendations are due within one year of pr omulgation of a new or revised NAAQS , and EPA has up to 3 years after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to designated areas for that NAAQS

. In the case of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, however, Congress amended section 107 to extend the schedule for E PA to initiate the designations process until three calendar years of air quality data, measured at Federal Reference Method monitors, were gathered

. See section 6102(c)(1)(d) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

. EPA and state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the PM 2.5 NAAQS in 1999 and deployed all air quality monitors by January 2001

. As a result, the designation process for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS did not begin until 2004.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 3 By no later than 120 days prior to promulg ating designations, EPA is required to notify
state s or t ribes of any intended modifications to their boundaries that EPA deems necessary

. States and t ribes then have an opportunity to provide a demonstration as to why the proposed modification s suggested by EPA are inappropriate

. CAA section 107(d(1)(B )(ii)

. Whether or not

a state or t ribe provides a recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems
app ropriate. In April 2003, EPA requested that California submit its designation recommendat ions, based on ambient air quality data from 2001 to 2003, and supporting documentation by February 15, 2004

. California submitted its recommendations on February 11, 2004

. See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA

- Region 9, February 11

, 2004

. On December 17, 2004, EPA issued final PM 2.5 designations for areas violating the 1997 standards

, including the San Joaquin Valley air basin

. They were published in the Federal Register on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) and became effective on April 5, 2005

. The designations are codified at 40 CFR part 8 1 , subpart C. 3

The d esignation of an area as nonattainment starts the process whereby a state or t ribe must develop an implementation plan that includes, among other things, a demonstration showing how it will attain the ambient standards by the attainment dates required in the CAA

. Under section 172(b) for PM 2.5 , state s have up to three years after final designations to submit their SIPs to EPA

. The SIPs for the 1997 PM 2.5 SIP were due on April 5, 2008 , three years after the effective date of the designations.

b. PM 2.5 Planning Requirements

In order to assist state s in developing effective plans to address their PM 2.5 nonattainment problem, EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, also known as the PM 2.5 implementation rule

. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) , codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z

. We proposed this rule o n November 1, 2005 at 70 FR 65984

. We issued this rule in accordance with the statutory requireme nts of the CAA set forth in subpart 1 of Part D of Title 1, i.e.
, sections 171

– 179B.

The PM 2.5 implementation rule covers most CAA requirements for PM 2.5 state implementation plans

. A list of these CAA requirements, the corresponding provision in the PM 2.5 implementation rule and preamble are given in Table IA

- 1 below.

3 On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the SJV, along with other areas in the Country, as nonattainment for the 20 06 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard s . 74 FR 58688. California is now required to submit a plan demonstrating attainment of th e 3 5 μg/m 3 24

- hour standard s by December 14, 2012. 74 FR 58688, 58689. The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan we are reviewing in this TSD addresses only the 1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard s of 65 μg/m 3 and annual standard s of 15 μg/m 3

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 4 Table IA

- 1 

### CAA Requirements for PM 2.5 

### Attainment State Implementation Plans

CAA Section PM 2.5 Implementation R ule Description TSD

Rule Preamble

172(a)(2)(A) § 51.1 004 20600

- 20602 Attainment date and attainment date extensions II.E.

172(b) § 51.1002(a) 20599

- 50600 SIP submittal date I.B.3.

172(c)(1) § 51.1010 20609

- 20633 Reasonably available control measures (including reasonably available control technology) II.D.

172(c)(1) § 51.1007(a) 20601

- 20602 D emonstration of expeditious attainment II.F.

172(c)(2) § 51.1009 20633

- 20640 Reasonable further progress II.H.
172(c)(3) § 51.1008 20647

- 20651 Emissions invento ry II.A.

172(c)(6) § 51.1007(b)

§ 51.1010(b) 20601

- 20602

20658

- 20660 Enforceable limitation limits, other

control measures, means or techniques and schedules and timetables for compliance as necessary for attainment II.D. & F.

172(c)(7) § 51.100 2(b) 20600 CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements N/A

172(c)( 9 ) § 51.10 12 20642

- 20645 Contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable further
progress II.J.

302(g) § 51.1002(c) 20589

- 20597 PM 2.5 p recursors to be evaluated for control II.C.

172(c)(1) § 51 .1007(b) 20629 Timing of emission s reductions for attainment II.D. & F.
176(c) § 93.118(e)(4) 20645

- 20646 M otor vehicle emissions budgets I.D.
172(c)(2) & (6) § 51.1011 20640 Mid

- course review II.I.

110 (a)(2)(K) § 51.1007(a)

,

§ 51.112, and Appendix W 20605

- 20609 Air Quality Modeling II.F.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 5 In June 2007 , a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of four provisions in the PM 2.5 implementation rule

. See Earthjustice, ―Petition for Reconsideration in the M atter of the Final Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, EPA Docket No. OAR

- 2003

- 0062, ‖ June 25, 2007

. These provisions are:

1. Presuming that c ompliance with the (now remanded ) Clean Air Interstate Rule satisfies the NO x and SO 2 RACT requirements for electric generating units (EGUs)

. 72 FR 20586

, 20623

- 206 28

. EPA granted the petition for this provision on April 25 , 2011

. Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, April 25 , 2011.

2. Allowing state s to defer establishing emission s limits for condensable PM until January 1, 2011

. 72 FR 20586

, 20652 (codified at 40 CFR § 51.1002(c))

. EPA denied the petition for this provision on April 25, 2011 because the deferral period had already lapsed

. 3. Revising the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT from a presumption that a given source must bear a cost similar to other sources to a consideration of whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the regulated entity to bear, in lig ht of benefits

. 72 FR 20586

, 20619

- 206 20

. EPA granted the petition for this provision on April 25, 201 1

. 4. Allowing state s to use emissions reductions from outside of the nonattainment area to demonstration RFP

. 72 FR 20586

, 20636

. EPA granted the petition for this provision on May 1 3

, 2010

. Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010.

The disputed provisions of the PM 2.5 implementation rule are, for the most part, not

re levant to today‘s action because California did not rely on them in developing the PM 2.5 plan for the San Joaquin Valley

. We address each of these provisions later in this TSD: the first three in section II.D. (RACM/RACT) and the fourth in section II.H. (RFP).



### B. PM 2.5 

### Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 nonattainment area is located in the southern part of California ‘s Central Valley

. It is home to almost 4 million people and is the nation‘s leading agricultural area

. S tretch ing over 250 miles from north to south and averag ing 80 miles wide, it is partially enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the east

. In total, the SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area
encompass es over 2 3 ,000 square miles and includes all or part of eight counties: San Joaquin, Stanislaus , Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern

. See Figure IB

- 3

. The local air district is the San Joaquin Valley (Unified) Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD , SJVUAPCD, or District).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 6 1. PM 2.5 Levels in the S an Joaquin Valley

A nnual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 levels in the urban Bakersfield area in the southern SJV are the highest recorded in the United States at 2 1

. 2 μg/m 3 and 65 μg/m 3 for the 200 8

- 20 10 period. 4 Since comprehensive mon itoring began for PM 2.5 in the SJV in the late 1990, the area has seen a significant decline in ambient levels, especially in the 2000

- 2005 time period

. See Figures IB

- 1 and I B

- 2

. Between 2005 and 2008, PM 2.5 concentrations increase d at many monitoring sites in the Valley but began to decline again in the 2008

- 2010 period. Figure IB

- 3 is a map of the current monitoring system in the SJV.



### Figure IB

- 1

Source: EPA‘s Air Quality Systems Database, June 2011 . The level of 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS is 15 μg/m 3

4 See EPA, Air Quality Subsystem, Design Value Report, June 1

, 2011. These values are the highest design values in the SJV. A design value is an ambient concentration calculated usin g a specific methodology from monitored air quality data and is used to compare an area‘s air quality to a NAAQS. The methodologies for calcul ating design values for the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS are found in 40 CFR 50

, Appendix N

, Section s 1 (c)(1) and 1(c)(2), respectively.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 7 

### Figure IB

- 2

Source: EPA‘s Air Quality Systems Database, June 2011 . The level of 1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS is 65 μg/m 3

.

2. Seasonality and Chemical Composition of PM 2.5 in the S an Joaquin Valley

PM 2.5 in the air is a complex mixture of components. Common components include: nitrate (NO 3 ); sulfate (SO 4 ); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and other trace elements) generally referred to as crustal material, although it may contain material from other sources

. Primary particles are emitted directly into the air as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental carbon fro m diesel engines or fire activities, or condensable organic particles from gasoline engines). Secondary particles (e.g., nitrate and sulfate) form in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions between precursor pollutants such as NO x , SO 2 , VOC, and a mmonia

. Understanding the compounds that make up an area‘s PM 2.5 problem is necessary in order to develop control strategies that are effective for attaining the NAAQS. 72 FR 20586

, 20589.

In the SJV , the levels and nature of PM 2.5 in the ambient air vary by season

. See Figures IB

- 4 to IB

- 7; see also SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Progress Report, Figure A

- 7. Higher PM 2.5 concentrations occur during the winter, between late November and February , when ambient PM 2.5 is dominated by ammonium nitrate

, formed from NO x and ammonia emissions, and directly

- emitted partic ulat es, such as wood smoke . During the winter, the SJV experiences extended periods of stagnant weather with cold, damp, foggy conditions ; conditions that areTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 8 conducive to the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate particulates and encourage wood burning. During the summer, PM 2.5 levels generally remain below 15 μg/m 3 , the level of the annual standards



### Figur e IB

- 3

– Ambient Monitoring Locations In the San Joaquin Valley

Source: SJVAPCD, Annual Report to the Community, 2010 , p. 35.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 

### Figures IB

- 4

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix H , Figure H

- 5

.



### Figure IB

- 5

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H

- 4

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 10 

### Figure IB

- 7

Source : 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix H , Figure H

- 6

.



### Figure IB

- 8

Source : 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix H , Figure H

- 7

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 11 

### C. California ’s Submittals Constituting the SJV PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plan

Six submittals or parts of submittals comprise the SJV PM 2.5 attainment state implementation plan . We will refer to these five submittals or parts of submittals collectively as the SJV PM 2.5 [attainment] SIP :

1. 2008 PM

2.5 Plan, adopted on April 30, 20 08 by the SJV U APCD and on May 22, 2008 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolutions and other supporting documentation by CARB on June 30, 2008. See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Governing Board Resolution: In the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, April 30, 2008; CARB Resolution No. 08

- 28, May 22, 2008 ; and letter , James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, June 30, 2008 with enclosures. This document will be r eferenced in th is TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, or simply the Plan.

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

, as amended and adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on November 16, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007 and letter

, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB

, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007, with enclosures. This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2007 State Strategy.

3. Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy , adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009. 5 See CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. This document w ill be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2009 State Strategy Status Report

. 4. 2008 PM

2.5 Plan Amendment to Extend the Rule 4905 Amendment Schedule , adopted on June 17, 2010 by the SJV U APCD , submitted with adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on September 15, 2010. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 10

- 06

- 18 , June 17, 2010 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, Septemb er 15, 2010, with enclosu res.
5. 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

, adopted on April 2 8

, 20 11 by CARB , submitted with the adopting r esolution and other supporting

5 Only pages 11

- 27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the repo rt is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution, No. 09

- 34.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 12 documentation by CARB on May 18

, 20 1 1

. 6 See CARB Resolution No. 11

- 24

, Apri l 2 8

, 20 11 a nd letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld , Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, May 18

, 2011 with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2011 Progress Report

. 6. 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Co nformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins

, adopted on Ju ly 2 1 , 2011 by CARB and submitted with adopting resolution and other supporting information by CARB on July 29, 2011. See CARB Resolution No. 11

- 22

, July 21, 2011 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with enclosures. 7 This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s

.
Future references in this TSD and the Federal Register notice to the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 and the Plan as revised in 2010 and 2011 , respectively, unless explicitly stated otherwi se. In addition to these plan submittals, the District and CARB have provided information on the implementation status of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SI P‘s control strategy . CARB also provided supplemental documentation of the air quality modeling and further analysis of the effectiveness of VOC controls for reducing PM 2.5 levels in the Valley as well as further information supporting the 2011 Progress Report

. This additional information is

1. Letter, John DaMassa, Chief Modeling and Meteorology Branch, CARB to F rances Wicher, Office of Air Planning, EPA Region 9, January 28, 2011 providing supplemental air quality modeling documentation (CARB m odeling s upplement)

. 2. Letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning, EPA Region 9, January 28, 2011, Attachment 4, ― Air Resources Board comments on U.S. EPA‘s November 30, 2010 proposal that VOC be considered a significant PM 2.5 P recursor for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) .‖ (CARB VOC s upplement)

3. SJ V APCD, 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Progress Report

, Draft March 2011 (SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report)

.

6 Only Appendices B, C and D o f the 20 11 Progress Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See May 18, 2011 Goldstene Letter.

7 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s is submitted as a SIP revision ; t he balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A, CARB Resolution No. 11

- 22. Among other things, this SIP revisions includes a revised RFP demonstration for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS and revised 8

- hour ozone motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity

. We are only acting on the revisions to the PM 2.5 SIP transportation budgets here. We will act on th e ozone

- related provisions of this SIP submittal as part of our final action on the SJV 2008 8

- Hour Ozone SIP. We proposed to approve these provisions on 76 FR 57846 (September 16, 2011).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 13 4. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, May 18, 2011

. ( CARB Progress Report

s upplement).

Final ly , both CARB and the District have adopted and submitted numerous rules that reduce emissions in the San Joaquin Valley and contribute to progress in meeting the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area. See Appendices A and B of this TSD.



### D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP Submittal s

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 1 10(a) and (l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and hearing prior to the adoption an d submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. T o meet this requirement

, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public hearing was held consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. T he District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2008. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution

, page 3

. CARB also provide the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its May 22, 2008 public hearing on the Plan. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, April 25, 2008

. The District also provided the required public notice and hearing on the 2010 revision to the Plan

. See SJV U APCD Governing B oard Resolution No. 10

- 06

- 18, June 17, 2010. CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007

. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for California‘s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8

- Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 Standards, May 7, 2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007

. CARB provide the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy

. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Appr oval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 and CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009

. CARB provide the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and pu blic hearing prior to its April 2 8

, 20 11 adoption of the 2011 Progress Report and its July 21, 2011 adoption of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

. See CARB, Notic e of Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of a Progress Report and Proposed State Im plementation Plan Revisions for PM 2.5 , March 2 9

, 20 11 and CARB Resolution No . 11

- 24, April 2 8

, 20 11 and CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 StateTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 14 Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of Proposed Revision s for the 8

- Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2011.

2. Completeness Determination s on SIP Submittals

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt

. This section also provides that any plan that we have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete by operation of law six months after the day of submittal

. A completeness review allows us to determine if the submittal includes all the necessary items and information we need to act on it. We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V

. These criteria fall i nto two categories: administrative information and technical support information

. The administrative information provides documentation that the state has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP

- adoption process and thus we have a legally

- a dopted SIP revision in front of us

. The technical support information provides us the information we need to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and maintenance of the air quality standards. We notify a state of our completeness det ermination by letter unless the submittal bec a me complete by operation of law

. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable

. It does start the 12

- month clock we have to ac t on the SIP submittal

. See CAA section 110(k)(2).

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan went complete by operation of law on December 30, 2008

. We found the 2010 revision to the Plan complete on September 23

, 2010

. See letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, CARB, September 23, 2010

. 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 May 18, 2011 submittal comp lete on June 1 3

, 2011

. See l etter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, CARB, June 1 3

, 201 1. We found the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete on August 23, 2011. See letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, CARB, August 23, 2011.

## II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 

## SIPTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 16 

### A. Emission s I nventor ies

1. Requirements for Emissions I nvento ries

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires a state to submit a plan provision that includes a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant.‖ Pursuant to this section, the PM 2.5 implementation rule requires a state to submit, within three years of the designation of one of its areas as nonattainment, statewide emissions invento ries of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors

. These inventories should meet the dat a requirements of EPA‘s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A)

. 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1). 8 Direct PM 2.5 includes condensable PM

. 40 CFR § 51.1000

. PM 2.5 precursors are NO X , SO 2 , VOC, and ammonia

. Id. T he state must report inventories for each, even if it has determined that control of any of these precursors is not necessary for attainment

. Id. and 72 FR 20586

, 20648.

The PM 2.5 implementation rule also requires a state to submit a baseline emissions invento ry as part of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in its PM 2.5 attainment plan

. The base year for this inventory should be calendar year 2002 or other suitable year for areas initially designated nonattainment for the PM 2.5 in 2004

- 2005

. 40 CFR § 51.100 8 (b)

. The baseline inventory should be appropriate for the geographical area addressed by the PM 2.5 attainment plan and consistent with applicable EPA guidance

. 72 FR 20586

, 2064 8

. A s tate is also required to submit any additional emissions invento ry inform ation needed to support its attainment and RFP demonstrations

. 72 FR 20586

, 20648 and 40 CFR § 51.100 8(a)(2). EPA has issued the ―Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations,‖ EPA

– 454/R

– 05

– 00 1 , November 2005 (available at www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html)

. EPA developed this guidance document to complement the CERR and to provide specific guidance on how to develop emissions invent ories for 8

- hour ozone, PM 2.5 , and regional haze SIPs. The emissions inventories required under the PM 2.5 implementation rule (as opposed to the CERR) are SIP provisions that must be approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k) and are subject to public hearin g requirements pursuant to section s 110(a)(2) and (l)

. A s tate should include in its SIP submittal documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated

. In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and pl anning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed

. 72 FR 20586

, 20647

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

. Currently this is EMFAC2007

. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).

8 In late 2008, EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (A ERR) at 73 FR 76539 (December 17, 2008). The AERR updated the CERR reporting requirements by consolidating and harmonizing new emissions reporting requirements with pre

- existing sets of reporting requirements under the NO X SIP Call (which does not appl y to California )

. Because this AERR was not finalized until after the submittal of the SJV PM 2.5 Plan, its data requirements, in that they differ from the CERR requirements, do not apply to the Plan.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 17 2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP

Note : We discuss CARB‘s statewide inventory to provide background to our evaluation of the emissions invento ries in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. We are not acting on the statewide inventory here

. CARB submitted state wide inventories for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (except for ammonia) as part of the 2007 State Strategy

. See Appendix A for the emissions invento ry output tables and Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory

. Inventories are provided f or the Strategy‘s base year of 2002 and baseline years of 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023. 9 These statewide emissions inventories are assembled and maintained by CARB in the California Emissions I nvent o ry Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) and the California Emission Forecasting and Planning Inventory System (CEFS) databases

. Both systems are described in Appendix F

. The inventories in Appendix A are summer season planning inventories on which t he 2007 State Strategy is based

. Baseline inventories incorporate reductions from control measures adopted prior to December 2006

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. B

- 1 and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1

. Specific adjustments for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 time period, as well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 and pesticide emissions, are described in the introductory section to Appendix A and can also be found in Appendix B to the December 2007 draft of t he SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. The planning inventories for direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 precursors (including ammonia) for the SJV PM 2.5 nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix B of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Pla n

. Both average winter day and average annual day inventories are provided for the year 2005 (the base year for the attainment and RFP demonstrations ) and each year from 2009 to 2014

. A winter inventory is provided because the majority of high PM 2.5 days i n the SJV occur during the winter months between November and February

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Figures H

- 4 and H

- 5

. The inventories use EMFAC2007 for estimating on

- road motor vehicle emissions

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. B

- 1

. These inventories provide the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations. As a starting point for the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s inventories, the District used CARB‘s 2002 inventory

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. B

- 1

. The 2002 inventory was projected to 2005 and future years usin g CEFSv 1.06

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. B

- 1. All inventories include emissions from point, area, on

- road, and non

- road sources

. None specifically show emissions from non

- anthropogenic sources (that is, natural sources) although inventories developed for input in to the air quality modeling do include such sources

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p

. G

- 3. A summary of the planning inventories for the Plan‘s base year of 2005 and baseline years of , 2009, 2012 and 2014 is provided in Table A

- 1 below.

9 The 2007 State Strategy addresses both 8

- hour ozone standard and the PM 2.5 standards; therefore, baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for PM 2.5 plans but also ones of importance for 8

- hour ozone plans.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 18 3. Proposed Action s on Emission s Inventory

In our November 2010 and July 2011 proposed action s on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, we proposed to find that the 2002 emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan met the CAA section 172(c)(3) requirement for the State to submit a plan provision that includes a comprehensive, accurate, current, inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant

. We also proposed to find that the baseline inventories in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan provided an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See 2010 Proposal TSD, section II.A. ; 75 FR 74 518

, 74522 ; 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.A.; and 76 FR 41338, 41342.

4

. Evaluat ion and Conclusion s
The emissions inventories were made available to the public for comment at the same time as the draft 2007 State Strategy and 2008 PM 2.5 P lan and were subject to public hearing as part of final version of the Strategy and Plan

. See CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, p. 3 and SJV U APCD Gov erning Board Resolution , p. 3.

T he SJV PM 2.5 SIP uses a 2005 base year inventory. When considered together with the inventory documentation in Appendix F of the State Strategy and the inventory documentation in A ppendix B and air quality modeling documentation in Appendices E

- G of the Plan, it contains all the elements required by EPA‘s emissions invento ry guidance.

The inventories in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP are based on the most current and accurate information available to the State and District at the time the Plan was developed and submitted (including using the latest EPA

- approved version of California‘s mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007), add ress comprehensively all source categories in the SJV , and meet the applicable requirements of EPA‘s inventory guidance. For these reasons, EPA is approv ing the 200 5 base year emissions inventor y in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sec tion 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1)

. We also find that the baseline inventories in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP provide an adequate basis for the reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations.

We received a numb er of comments on our proposed approval of the emissions inventory . We have reviewed these comment and provided respon ses to them. See section III. B. of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the emissions inventories in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan are consistent with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance.

2011 Revisions to the Plan’s Base Year and Projected Baseline Inventories

From late 2007 until mid

- 2009 , California experienced a n economic recession that greatly reduced and continues to a ffect the level of a ctivity in the State‘s construction and goods
movement sectors

. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. As a result, current and projected emission levels from these categories are now substant ially lower than were projected in 2008 SJV PM 2.5 Plan. At this time, EPA will reflect these recession impacts (in combination with the technical corrections to the inventory discussed below) as a line

- item adjustments to the baseline inventories.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 19 T h e se re cession

- caused decreases in emissions do not affect either the Plan‘s modeling year (2000) or base year (2005) inventories and thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in the Plan (that is, they do not affect the target level of overall emissions needed to demonstrate attainment) or the starting point for the reasonable further progress demonstration. Their principal effect is to reduce the reductions needed from the Plan‘s control strategy to demonstrate RFP and attainment.

CARB also made technic al changes to the inventory for diesel trucks and buses as part of its December 2010 rulemaking amending its In

- Use On

- Road Truck and Bus Rule . The se include d updates and revisions to:

regional allocation factors

o ut

- of

- state vehicle miles traveled estimat es new vehicle inventory categories lifetime mileage assumptions

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pr o posed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor

Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation , October 2010, p. 17.

CARB also comprehensive ly updated and revised the inventory for off

- road equipment as part its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment Rule. These included updates and revisions to:

equipment po pulation hours of use load factors future equipment sales and activity

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pr o posed Amendments to the Regulation for In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel

- Fueled Fleets and the Off

- Road Large Spark

- Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010, p p . 1 6

- 1 7.

CARB estimates that the se technical revisions reduce the total 2005 base year NO x and PM 2.5 inventory by approximately 6 percent of the NO x and 5 percent, respectively

. CARB Progress Report supplement , Attachment 1

. These change are too small to affect the overall accuracy of the inventory given the normal and unavoidable uncertainties in emissions inventories.

We have also considere d the potential effect s of the revisions to the truck, bus, and off

road equipment emissions inventor y categories on the approvability of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the Plan and concluded they do not adversely affect them. See section s II. B

. 5

. and II. H

. of this TSD. We note that the State and District are currently working on a revisions to the SJV PM 2.5 SIP to address the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. Th ese revision s are due to EPA in December 2012 and will , as required by CAA section 172(c)(3 ) include the latest update s to the emissions inventories.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 20 Table A

- 1 

### Emissions I nvento ry Summary for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 

### Nonattainment Area (tons per day)
Annual Average Day Winter Average Day 2005 2009 2012 2014 2005 2009 2012 2014 Direct PM 2.5 Stationary Sources 13.3 13.8 14.2 14.4 12.8 13.3 13.7 14.0 Area Sources 51.5 46.8 45.8 45.2 54.6 51.2 49.2 47.9 On

- Road Mobile Sources 12.1 11.3 9.9 8.9 12.2 11.4 10.0 9.0 Off

- Road Mobile Sources 9.0 7.9 7.2 6.6 8.1 7.0 6.3 5.7

Total 86.0 79.8 77.0 75.0 87.6 82.9 79.1 76.6 Nitrogen Oxides Stationary Sources 80.1 62.7 58.7 56.5 71.9 58.5 56.2 55.0 Area Sources 13.5 11.0 10.8 10.7 18.2 16.3 15.9 15.7 On

- Road Mobile Sources 327.9 297.4 243.8 206.7 342.1 311.5 255.1 216.0 Off

- Road Mobile Sources 153.9 129.7 111.1 102.2 141.0 118.4 101.2 93.4 Total 575.4 500.9 424.4 376.2 573.1 504.7 428.4 380.1 Sulfur Dioxide Stationary Sources 20.4 20.6 21.5 22.0 19.6 20.0 20.9 21.4 Area Sources 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 On

- Road Mobile Sources 2.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Off

- Road Mobile Sources 2.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.3 08 0.8 0.8TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 21 Table A

- 1 

### Emissions I nvento ry Summary for the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 

### Nonattainment Area (tons per day)
Annual Average Day Winter Average Day 2005 2009 2012 2014 2005 2009 2012 2014 Total 26.4 23.0 23.8 24.5 25.2 22.3 23.1 23.7 Volatile Organic Compounds Stationary Sources 121.5 121.9 123.9 129.5 101.4 102.0 103.4 107.1 Area Sources 140.7 122.4 125.5 128.0 145.4 127.1 129.6 131.7 On

- Road Mobile Sources 94.8 76.5 64.8 57.2 99.7 80.9 68.1 59.9 Off

- Road Mobile Sources 62.7 54.3 50.8 48.5 55.7 48.6 45.8 43.9

Total 419.8 375.2 365.0 363.2 402.2 358.6 346.9 342.6 Ammonia Stationary Sources 19.8 21.0 22.2 23.0 19.8 21.0 22.2 23.0 Area Sources 355.9 381.9 405.8 423.1 356.9 382.9 406.7 424.0 On

- Road Mobile Sources 6.2 5.3 5.0 4.8 6.2 5.3 5.0 4.8 Off

- Road Mobile Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 382.0 408.3 433.0 451.0 382.9 409.2 433.9 451.8

Source: SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B

- 1 to B

- 5.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 22 

### B. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling

The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires states to submit an attainment demonstration based on modeling results. Specifically, 40 CFR § 51.1007 (a) states:

For any area designated as nonattainment for the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the State must submit an attainment demonstration showing that the area will attain the annual and 24

- hour standards as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must meet the requirements of § 51.112 and Appendix W of this part and must include inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on which the State has based its projected attainment date. The attainment date justifi ed by the demonstration must be consistent with the requirements of § 51.1004(a). The modeled strategies must be consistent with requirements in § 51.1009 for RFP and in § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM. The attainment demonstration and supporting air quality m odeling should be consistent with EPA‘s PM 2.5 modeling guidance. 10

See also 72 FR 20586

, 20665. Air quality modeling is used to establish emission attainment targets, a combination of emissions of PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors that the area can accommodate wit hout exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will result in attainment of the standards. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data in order to determine model performance. Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, future year emissions inventory changes are simulated to determine the relationship between emissions reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the air basin. The procedures for modeling PM 2.5 as part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA's ―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8

- Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze.‖

2

. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan uses multiple modeling analyses to demonstrate attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV

. It mainly relies on several variants of an approach based on receptor modeling for the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS

. This approach begins with Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling, which distinguishes the ambient PM 2.5 contributions of several broad emissions source categories based on how they match the chemical species components of PM 2.5 measurements

. The CMB results are then refined with emis sions inventory data to distinguish additional source categories, an area of influence analysis to better reflect particular sources affecting a monitor, and information from past photochemical modeling to assess how

10 EPA‘s November 9, 2005 final rule revising the ―Guideline on Air Quality Mod els‖ in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W is available at www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 23 secondarily formed PM 2.5 will respond t o changes in precursor emissions

. Several variants of this approach a re used, with CMB results from different locations and different base case years

. This modeling only addresses the annual PM 2.5 standard.

The Plan also includes an attainment demonstratio n using photochemical modeling with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model. This modeling incorporates data collected during 2000 California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) and addresses both the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard s. It is considered the main attainment demonstration, with the receptor modeling as a corroborating analysis. 11
Based on verb tenses and on the structure of the Plan and appendices, it appears that the receptor modeling was completed first and was later s upplemented with the photochemical modeling. Both the receptor and photochemical modeling focused primarily on the annual standard. The annual standard was viewed as controlling in the sense that any control strategy that provided for annual standard attai nment would also provide sufficient emissions reductions for 24

- hour standard attainment. At the time the Plan was prepared in 2006, ambient data for PM 2.5 was consistent with attainment of the 24

- hour NAAQS. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix A, Table A

- 9.

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan discusses a ir quality modeling in the ―Executive Summary,‖ Chapter 3 ― What is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment? ,‖ Appendix E ―District Additions to the Conceptual Model

, ‖ Appendix F ― SJV PM 2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol ,‖ Appendix G ― Regional Air Quality Modeling ,‖ Appendix H ―Weight of Evidence

, ‖ and the additional appendices ― 2014 Receptor Modeling Documentation ,‖ ―Meteorological Model Performance Analysis

, ‖ and ―Regional Model Performance Analysis

. ‖ CARB provided additional modeling document ation in ―Three

- Dimensional Grid

- Based Photochemical Modeling

- Related Responses to the US EPA‘s Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strat egy , ‖ California Air Resources Board, January 28, 2011 , including Appendices A through D (hereafter, CARB modeling supplement). A conceptual model of PM 2.5 formation in the San Joaquin Valley is in Appendices E and F, with additional material in Appendix H . The principal discussion of the photochemical modeling is in Appendices F and G, along with the two model performance appendices. Receptor modeling is covered in Chapter 3, Appendix F, and the Receptor Modeling Documentation appendix. The Weight of Evide nce analysis in Appendix H discusses both the photochemical and receptor modeling, as well as ambient trends and other data in support of the attainment demonstration. Consistent with the Guidance, EPA considers the photochemical modeling to be the main ba sis for the PM 2.5 attainment demonstration. Guidance, p. 15. The receptor modeling may be considered supplemental analysis to corroborate the photochemical modeling results, e.g. as part of a weight of evidence approach. Guidance, p. 213.

11 Memorandum . Scott Bohning, EPA Region 9, Air Quality Analysis Office to Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516, June 17, 2011, re: Notes on call w/ ARB re: V OC as a PM 2.5 plan precursor in SJV , found in the docket for this rule

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 24 a. Conceptual De scription A conceptual description is a qualitative way of charact erizing the nature of an area‘s nonattainment problem . It can be helpful in identifying potential stakeholders and for developing a modeling protocol. It can also influence the c hoice of air quality model, modeling domain, grid cell size, priorities for quality assuring and refining emissions estimates, and the choice of initial diagnostic tests to identify potentially effective control strategies

. In general, a conceptual description is usef

ul for helping a state to identify priorities and allocate resources in performing a modeled attainment demonstration.

The G uidance at pp. 128

- 130 lists 13 elements that should be addressed in the conceptual description . These are :

1. nonattainment problem (e.g., local versus regional)

2. relative importance of primary and secondary components of PM 2.5 3. most prevalent components of measured PM 2.5 4. components of measurements versus emissions

5. areas with large gradients

6. indications of limiting precursor for secondar y formation

7. monitored violations at locations subject to mesoscale wind patterns (e.g., at a coastline) differing from the general wind flow

8. recent changes in PM emissions in or near the nonattainment area

9. trends in design values or other air quality indic ators that have accompanied emissions changes

10. spatial pattern to trends in design values or other air quality indicators

11. past modeling results

12. distinctive meteorological measurements coinciding with exceedances

13. correlations of PM or components with each ot her and other pollutants

The Plan contains ample discussion of the PM 2.5 problem in the San Joaquin Valley. Much of the same material is covered in Chapter 3 (pp. 3

- 3

– 3

- 9); most of Appendix E; the modeling protocol in Appendix F at pp. F

- 13

– F

- 18, F

- 21, F

- 52

– F

- 56; and various parts of Appendix H. Appendix E on ―District Additions to the Conceptual Model‖ has substantial discussion of the effect on PM 2. 5 concentrations of seasonal changes, the influence of meteorology including fog, dry deposition, and emissions variations

. Analysis of data collected during the 2000 CRPAQS substantially added to the understanding of PM 2.5 in the SJV . The cited chapters and appendices excerpt a number of conclusions from papers stemming from CRPAQS. 12

12 Appendix F at p. F

- 71 also includes by reference the paper ―Conceptual Model of Particulate Matter Pollution in the California San Joaquin Valley,‖ Document Number CP045

- 1

- 98, 8 September 1998, prepared by: Betty Pun and Christian Seigneur, Atmospheric a nd Environmental Research, Inc. This paper has conclusionsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 25 In brief, the PM 2.5 p roblem in the San Joaquin Valley is mainly due to secondary particulates, especially in winter, with a substantial primary component throughout the year and during some winter episodes. PM 2.5 c oncentrations are much higher in winter than in summer. Concent rations in April through September are generally less than 15 μg/m 3 , the level of the annual NAAQS. Nonattainment of the annual NAAQS is driven by high wintertime concentrations, including episodes during stagnant, moist conditions. Stagnant conditions and surface radiation inversions restrict pollutant dispersion, allowing concentrations to build to high levels. The enclosure of the SJV by mountain ranges restricts air flow and helps the inversion form a cap over the polluted air. Concentrations are highes t at the southern end of the Valley, which is more enclosed than the northern end and experiences stagnation during winter and recirculation of polluted air via the Fresno eddy during summer. The dominant component of PM 2.5 in the SJV is ammonium nitrate, formed from the abundant ammonia emissions in this agricultural area and NO x emissions from on

- road motor vehicles, other mobile sources, and various fuel

- combustion stationary sources. Ammonium nitrate formation is enhance d during the cool, moist winter months. Based on ambient concentrations and on previous modeling work, ammonia appears to be so abundant that formation of ammonium nitrate is limited by the rate of HNO 3 (nitric acid) formation via oxidation of NO x , rather by the availability of ammonia. In addition to ammonium nitrate, organic carbon (OC) can also be a significant component of PM 2.5 . The main sources of OC are agricultural vegetative burning, residential wood combustion, other direct sources such as vehicle s, and a smaller contribution from secondary organic aerosols. During CRPAQS it was found that organic carbon has a strong spatial gradient, being much higher in urban areas, especially during high PM 2.5 episodes. This gradient was explained as being due t o the greater vehicle emissions and residential wood combustion in cities. Ammonium sulfate is a relatively small component of secondary PM 2.5 in the SJV unlike areas in the eastern part of the United States where it is the dominant component of secondary PM 2.5
. As discussed at 2008 PM 2.5 Plan pages 3

- 32 and F

- 39 , the annual standard is the focus of the modeling analysis because ambient concentrations of PM 2.5 in the SJV were below the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS during the development of the Plan. There were thus no 24

- hour episod es suitable for speciated rollback in the receptor modeling approaches and little need to focus on the 24

- hour standard for the photochemical modeling, although 24

- hour modeling was performed. EPA finds that the conceptual description of t he PM 2.5 problem in SJV provided in the Plan is adequately documented, convincing, and formed an adequate basis for the development of the modeling protocol and the analysis work.

b

. Modeling Protocol A modeling protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all phases of the modeling study, such as describing the background and objectives for the study, creating a schedule and organizational structure for the study, developing the input data, conducti ng model performance evaluations, interpreting modeling results, describing procedures for using the model to demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to attain the NAAQS, and

similar to those covered in the Plan sections listed above, although it is based on analysis of data collected during an earlier study, the 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study (or IMS95).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 26 producing documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office re view and approval . The Guidance at pp. 133

- 134 describes a minimum list of topics to be addressed in the modeling protocol:

1. Overview of Modeling/Analysis Project

a. Management structure b. Technical committees or other communication procedures to be used

c. Partici pating organizations d. Schedule for completion of attainment demonstration

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

2. Model and Modeling Inputs

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

c. Horizontal and vertical resolution d. Specification of initial and boundary conditions

e. Episode selection f. Description of meteorological model setup
g. Development of emissions inputs h. Geographic area identified for application of the attainment test(s) i. Methods used to quality

- assure emissions, meteorological, and other model inputs

3. Model Performance Evaluation

a. Description of the ambient data base b. Description of the evaluation procedures

c. Identification of possible diagnostic testing tha t could be used to improve model performance

4. Supplemental Analyses

a. Description of the additional analyses to be completed to corroborate the model attainment test b. Outline of the plans for conducting a weight of evidence determination, should it be necessar y
5. Procedural Requirements

a. Identification of how modeling and other analyses will be archived and documented b. Identification of specific deliverables to EPA Regional Office

2008 PM 2.5 Plan ‘s modeling protocol is contained in Appendix F, with descriptions of both the receptor modeling approaches and the photochemical modeling. Many aspects of the photochemical modeling that are suitable for inclusion in a protocol are also covered in Appendix G and the ― Regiona l Model Performance Analysis ‖ appendix. The protocol covers all of the above topics, with the exception of identification of how modeling and other analyses will be archived. In the Plan there is no discussion of this topic, nor any description of how mode ling data files may be accessed, should EPA or other interested parties wish to replicate the results of the analysis. See Guidance, p. 117. However, section 1 ofTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 27 the CARB modeling supplement describes the data storage requirements for the modeling files, and discusses how they may be requested (pp. 2

- 3).

c. Air Quality Model Selection A model should meet several general criteria for it to be a candidate for consideration in an attainment demonstration. Guidance, p.136. These general criteria are consistent with requirements in 40 CFR § 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. EPA does not recommend a specific model for use in attainment demonstrations. At present, there is no single model which has been extensively tested and shown to be clearly sup erior to its alternatives. Thus, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a preferred model for use in attainment demonstrations of the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Based on the language in Appendix W, models used for these purposes should meet requirements in the Appe ndix for alternative models.

States should use a non

- proprietary model, that is, a model whose source code is available for free (or for a reasonable cost) and whose code can be revised by the state in order to perform diagnostic analyses and/or to improve the model‘s ability to describe observations in a credible manner. A model should meet several additional prerequisites before being used to support an attainment demonstration. It should be:

1. revised in response to a scientific peer review,

2. appropriate fo r the specific application on a theoretical basis,

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

4. shown to have performed well in past ozone or PM modeling applications (or if it is the first application, then the state should note why it believes the new model is expected to perform sufficiently); and

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

2008 PM 2.5 Plan ‘s m odel selection is discussed at p. F

- 80 and p. G

- 2, with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ ) mode l selected . CMAQ is a ― state

- of

- the

- science [model that]... has been extensively peer

- reviewed, is well

- documented, and ... has been applied successfully in a range of environments .‖ The Plan mentions certain California

- specific updates to the model, but these are not described other than via a citation. However, the California

specific updates are described in CARB modeling supplement, section 3.2, p.17.

The California

- specific updates included: 1) fixing a model bug involving overly la rge fine PM deposition velocities that caused negative concentrations, 2) accommodation of hourly average emissions instead of the CMAQS default instantaneous assumption, 3) incorporation of a time

- varying fine PM size distribution, 4) using a smaller stan dard deviation for the coarse PM size distribution to keep it within the appropriate 2.5

– 10 μm size range, 5) a lower vertical diffusion coefficient to better reflect the stagnation in California‘s Central Valley, 6) a cap on ionic strength used in activ ity coefficient calculations for the aqueous phase oxidation of (bi)sulfate, 7) the addition of dimethyl sulfide (DMS) to the chemical mechanism to reflect the sulfur compound emissions from the large oceanic portion of the modeling domain (expected to be a larger proportion of the total as anthropogenic sulfur emissions have been reduced in recent decades). For each of these changes, a brief description and rationale is presented; the changesTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 28 appear to have a reasonable basis, and to have been aimed at imp roving model performance suggested by problems encountered in applying the default model to conditions in the SJV. There is no discussion of any alternative models considered. EPA, however, finds that the choice of the CMAQ model is adequately justified be cause the EPA

- sponsored CMAQ is explicitly mentioned in the Guidance (p. 138) as being a suitable model.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s chemical mechanism selection is also discussed at p. F

- 80 and p. G

- 2, with SAPRC

- 99 selected for the gas phase mechanism, and CMAQ‘s AE4

- AQ as the aqueous phase mechanism. These are little described except for a journal paper citation.

There is little discussion of alternative mechanisms considered. EPA, however, finds that the use of SAPRC is adequately justified because SAPRC is a we ll

- known and widely

- used mechanism.

d. Episode Selection We recommend one of two possible approaches for the modeling the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS ( Guidance, p. 147) :
1) Model every day for a full year (or multiple years). This is recommended for both dispersi on modeling of primary PM 2.5 components and photochemical modeling of secondary and primary components. Many areas that violate the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS will also violate the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, full year modeling may already exist or is being pl anned for the annual NAAQS attainment test. Modeling at least a full year will also help ensure that a sufficient number of days are included in the relative response factor (RRF) calculations. 2) Model episodes when high PM 2.5 concentrations occur

. Similar to modeling for the

ozone NAAQS , episodes should be selected where PM 2.5 concentrations are greater than the NAAQS ( in this case, the 1997 standard of 65 μg/m 3 ) and are close to the baseline design value . Also s imilar to ozone modeling , data analys es can be completed to help select a variety of meteorological episodes which lead to high PM 2.5 concentrations

. In some cases, there may be very limited conditions which lead to high 24

- hour average PM 2.5 concentrations, and in other cases there may be a wide variety of cases

. The specific situation in each nonattainment area will determine the number of episodes and the time periods which need to be modeled

. For example, if exceedance

- level PM 2.5 concentrations in an area only occur in the winter, then a limited number of winter days can be modeled

. In other areas, exceedance days may occur in all seasons.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s e pisode selection is not discussed, instead a full year of modeling was performed. As mentioned above, there was little need to focus on the 24

- hour standard attainment since ambient concentrations were already consistent with attainment of the NAAQS at the time the Plan was developed. Therefore there was no selection of particular periods or episodes of interest for the 24

- hour NAAQS, a lthough 24

- hour modeling was in fact performed. EPA finds that this is adequate. Since nonattainment of the annual standard in the SJV is known to be driven by frequent particular episodes in winter, it would have been preferable toTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 29 choose and examine thes e particular periods in more detail in order to ensure the model performs well during such periods. However, because the model is used in a relative sense in the attainment demonstration, the design value already attaining the 24

- hour standard would have b een scaled by a modeled RRF that reflects emissions reductions, and so the predicted 24

- hour PM 2.5 design value would also have attained the standard.

e. Domain, Domain Size, and Spatial Resolution

i. Domain Size The principal determinants of model domain size are the nature of the PM 2.5 problem and the scale of the emissions which impact the nonattainment area. Isolated nonattainment areas that are not affected by regional transport of PM and its precursors may be able to use a relatively small doma in. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall into this category. The modeling domain should be designed so that all major upwind source areas that influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The influence of boundary condi tions should be minimized to the extent possible. Guidance, p. 153.

ii. Horizontal Resolution EPA is comfortable recommending that states may use grid cell sizes as large as 12 kilometers (km) for urban scale applications addressing secondary components of particulate matter. We are less sure about an acceptable upper limit for cell size in applications addressing primary components. We believe it is prudent to assume that, in some cases, cells as small as 4 km (or possibly smaller) are needed. A state impl ementing the modeling/analysis protocol may wish to perform a diagnostic test using a grid model without chemistry to see whether estimated RRF‘s for primary components are affected if one decreases the grid cell size from 12 km to 4 km. Alternatively, lar ge sources of primary PM can be modeled with a dispersion model or a combination of grid and dispersion models. We expect that modeling analyses for nonattainment areas will use grid cell sizes of 12 km or less. If a regional scale model is applied, most o f the domain will likely cover rural/remote areas or locations which are not out of compliance with the NAAQS. For the regional outer nest of the domain, grid cells as large as 36 km may be used. Guidance, p. 157.

iii. Vertical Layers

There is no correct minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment demonstration. The vertical resolution will vary depending on the application. Greater resolution allows more precise estimation of mixing heights and avoids unrealistic step increases in mixing; al ignment with the layers in the meteorological model can affect accuracy; the lowest layer should generally be no more than 50 meters thick; resolution above the boundary layer can generally be coarser. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with mod el tops at 100 millibars (mb)) have used anywhere from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8

- 15 layers approximately within the boundary layer (below 2500 m) and 4

- 6 layers above the Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL). Guidance p. 159.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s m odeling dom ain is discussed at pp. F

- 39, F

- 81, and especially p. G

- 3, and is shown on a map on page G

- 18. The domain uses a nested grid, with the inner domain containing the entire District and nonattainment area. The inner domain has a 4 km grid resolution and measu res 320 by 356 km (80 by 89 grid cells). This inner domain is nested withinTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 30 an outer domain covering most of California (CCAQS domain), extending from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the deserts in Nevada and southern California in the east, and from the Tehachapi Mountains in the south to the Sacramento Valley in the north. It has a 12 km resolution and measures 756 km (63 grid cells) in both horizontal dimensions. Both domains used 15 vertical layers of varying thickness up to the 100 mb pressure level ( the top of the meteorological domain) with the surface layer approximately 30 m thick.

CCAQS modeling domain with the SJV modeling domain inset

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Figure 1, p

. G

- 18

EPA finds the domain to be adequate, even though the documentation is sparse on its selection. The Plan has no discussion of any rationale for the particular domain chosen or its horizontal and spatial resolution. Nevertheless, the inner domain meets all of the Guidance modeling domain characteristics listed above for spatial resolution and layer thickness. It also appears adequate for minimizing the influence of boundary conditions, since the east and west boundaries are in areas of sparse population, and the southern boundary is beyond a mountain range. The northern boundary is less satisfactory from this standpoint but is justified on the basis the Sacramento area being a different nonattainment area and all counties exceeding the PM 2.5 NAAQS being located in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, well away from the northern boundary. In addition, this inner domain is nested within an outer one that also meets the Guidance criteria.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 31 f. Initial and Boundary Conditions If there is no larger regional model application available, then it is recommended that background boundary conditions be used to specify initial and boundary concentrations for the attainment demonstration modeling. However, concentration fields derived f rom a larger domain regional or global chemistry model (i.e., the nesting approach) is considered more credible than the assumption of static concentrations, since the pollutant concentration fields reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical proce sses driven by assimilated meteorological observations. Therefore, EPA recommends using boundary conditions derived from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible. We also recommend using a ramp

- up period by beginning a simulation prior to the pe riod of interest to diminish the importance of initial conditions . The recommend ed ramp

- up period is at least 5

- 10 days for PM 2.5 . Diagnostic testing which indicates a large impact on the model results from initial or boundary conditions may indicate that the domain is not large enough or the ramp

- up period is too short. In either case, it should generally be assumed that initial and boundary conditions do not change in the future. The use of altered initial or boundary conditions in the future year should be documented and justified. Guidance, p. 153.

Plan i nitial and boundary conditions are discussed at p. F

- 81 and p. G

- 3. Boundary conditions for the outer domain were taken from the global chemical transport Model for Ozone And Related C hemical Tracers (MO ZART) . Initial conditions were estimated as an average of these conditions. The outer domain‘s boundary conditions varied monthly, while the inner domain‘s were computed from modeling of the outer domain and varied hourly. The use of 8

- day
ramp

- up (a.k.a. spin up) periods prior to each model simulation minimized the effect of uncertain initial conditions on the modeling. Page F

- 73 in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan has a table of annual average boundary conditions for the various chemical species; there is no informati on on the monthly or hourly values. There is no discussion of any diagnostic testing. EPA finds the initial and boundary conditions are acceptable, although sparsely documented (the preceding summary is essentially the full description in the Plan). Condit ions appear to have been based on a reasonable procedure, and the ramp

- up period appears adequate.

g. Meteorological Model

i. Meteorological Model Selection A description of the methods used to generate the meteorological fields should be included in the modeling protocol. In cases in which standard meteorological modeling (e.g. MM5, RAMS, or WRF in a retrospective analysis mode) is not used, EPA recommends that a detailed description of the technique that will be used to generate the three

- dimensional

me teorological fields be shared with the appropriate EPA regional office(s) prior to conducting the air quality modeling analysis. Guidance, p. 161.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s meteorological model selection is discussed at p. F

- 81 and p. G

- 4, with MM5 selected. While there is no discussion of alternative meteorological models, since MM5 is well

- known and widely used and explicitly mentioned in the Guidance (p. 160) as being a suitable model, EPA finds that t he model choice is adequately justified.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 32 ii

. Meteorological Model Domain It is expected that most attainment demonstrations will cover large areas and use nested grids. The outermost grid should capture all upwind areas that can reasonably be expected to influence local concentrations of PM 2.5 . In terms of selecting an appropriate meteorological modeling domain, a state should extend the grid 3 to 6 cells beyond the domains of each air quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. For example, if 4 km g rid cells are to be used in the fine portion of a nested regional air quality model, then the meteorological fields at this detail would need to extend 12

- 24 km beyond the bounds of the 4 km grid used for air quality predictions. In terms of grid resolutio n, EPA recommends that the dynamic meteorological models use the same grid resolution as desired for the air quality model applications. In some cases, however, this may not always be feasible. One possible reason for modeling with meteorology using a diff

erent grid resolution is in the case of unacceptable model performance from the meteorological model at the desired grid resolution. In other instances, the need for finer resolution may be emissions

- driven more than meteorologically

- driven and the costs d o not warrant the generation of additional resolution in the meteorological data. In these specific situations it is recommended that the air quality model application use available results from meteorological models on the next coarser scale (i.e., 36 km for a desired 12 km estimate, 12 km for a desired 4 km estimate). The coarse grid meteorological fields can be mapped to the more finely resolved air quality modeling domain.

iii. Physics Options Most meteorological models have a suite of physics options that allow users to select how a given feature will be simulated

. For example, there may be several options for specifying the planetary boundary layer scheme or the cumulus parameterization

. In many situations, the optimal configuration cannot be determin ed without performing an initial series of sensitivity tests which consider various combinations of physics options over specific time periods and regions

. While these tests may not ultimately conclude that any one configuration is clearly superior at all times and in all areas, it is recommended that these sensitivity tests be completed, as they should lead to a modeling analysis that is best

- suited for the domain and period being simulated

. Typically, the model configuration which yields predictions that provide the best statistical match with observed data over the most cases (episodes, regions, etc.) is the one that should be chosen, although other more qualitative information can also be considered

. Additionally, model configurations should be designed to account for the pollutants and time periods that are of most interest

. As an example, a wintertime PM simulation in the Midwest (with high measured nitrate concentrations) may need a meteorological model configuration that employs a land

- surface model t hat properly handles snow cover ed fields and their effects on boundary layer humidities and temperatures.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s m eteorological model setup is discussed at p. F

- 81 and p. G

- 4 and in the appendix ― Meteorologica l Model Performance Analysis‖ (hereafter, MMPA). A 14

- month simulation was done (the year 2000 plus a month at either end), using three nested grids, having horizontal resolutions of 36 k, 12 km, and 4 km, from outermost to innermost. Maps of the domains appear as Figure 2 on p.G

- 19 an d Figure 1 on p. 2 on of MMPA. (The innermost domain in the two figures does not match; the one on the map in Appendix G appears to be incorrect since it is square, whereas the horizontal dimensions are stated to be 94x85 grid cells in both appendices.)TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 33 Th e meteorological model used 30 vertical layers, extending up to the 100 mb pressure level, with the surface layer 30 m deep. The MMPA at pp. 2

- 3 states that sensitivity testing using 50 layers and a 15 m surface layer to better resolve atmospheric processe s for stable winter conditions , but this doubled run times with little improvement in model results. (The context implies that this refers to the meteorological model rather than the air quality model.) The MMPA goes on to state ― Many sensitivity studies w ere conducted using various model options to gain better agreement with observations. ‖ The optimal configuration included various physics options listed, e.g., Grell cumulus parameterization, Blackadar boundary layer scheme, Dudhia ice scheme, Dudhia cloud radiation scheme, and Blackadar soil model. Analysis nudging was used for the outer 36 km and 12 km grids.

The Location o f the T hree Nested Grids Designed t o Study t he Meteorology And Air Quality i n the SJV Domain

Source : 2008 PM 2.5 Plan ―Meteorological Model Performance Analysis,‖ p. 2.

EPA finds that the meteorological domain and model set

- up are acceptable although sparsely documented (the preceding summary is majority of the description provided in theTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 34 Plan). It appears that there was substantial effort to improve the meteorological model performance before an optimal configuration was chosen.

h

. Meteorological Model Performance

EPA recommends that state s devote appropriate effort to the process of evaluating the meteorological inputs to the air quality model as we believe good meteorological model performance will yield more confidence in the predictions from the air quality model

. This evaluation should determine if the meteorological model output fields represent a reasonable approxi mation of the actual meteorology that occurred during the modeling period

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

. A second objective of the evaluation should be to identify and quantify the existing biases and errors in the meteorological predictions in order to allow for a downstream assessment of how the air quality modeling results are affected by issues associated with the meteorological data

. This evaluation can be done via a more ph enomenological assessment (i.e., generally qualitative comparisons of observed features v ersus their depiction in the model data)

. Guidance, p. 163. Operational Evaluation ( Guidance, p . 163) : The operational evaluation results should focus on the values an d distributions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to observed data. It is recommended that the observation

- model matching be paired as closely as possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparisons of the key meteoro logical parameters will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, mean absolute error, mean absolute normalized error, root mean square error (systematic and unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over la rge domains and entire seasons or years, it is recommended that the operational evaluation be broken down into individual segments such as geographic sub

- regions and/or months/seasons to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the meteorological stren gths and weaknesses. Phenomenological Evaluation ( Guidance, p. 167) : Within the conceptual description of a particular modeling exercise, EPA recommend s that a state identif y and qualitatively rank in importance the specific meteorological parameters that influence air quality

. When evaluating meteorological models or any other source of meteorological data, the focus of the phenomenological evaluation should be on those specific meteorological phenomena that are thought to strongly affect air pollution for mation 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 o f a potential phenomenological analysis, many regional air quality modeling exercises attempt to assess the effects of transport of emissions from one area to a downwind area with an intent to establish source

- receptor relationships

. For these types of mod eling analyses, accurate transport wind trajectories are needed to properly establish these source

receptor linkages

. In this type of model application, a useful event

- based meteorological evaluation would be to compare model

- derived trajectories versus th ose based on ambient data to determine what error distance can be associated with the model fields.

2008 SJV Plan ‘s m eteorological m odel p erformance is discussed in the appendix

― Meteorologica l Model Performance Analysis‖ (MMPA). In addition, CARB modeling supplement includes a phenomenological model evaluation, and its Appendixes A through D provide exhaustive documentation on performance of the model, with many time series and spatial plots for wind speed, wind direction, temperature. Appendix A has plots and statistics forTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 35 modeled vs. observed temperature, relative humidity, and wind components for each meteorological station, and also accumulated precipitation for some stations. Appendix B has some of the material that is in the ― Meteorologica l Model Per formance Analysis‖ in the Plan, but also many histograms showing occurrence frequency of simulated and observed wind speeds, temperature, and relative humidity for each month, for the stations in the vicinity of Fresno. Appendix C has weekly time series pl ots for wind speed, wind direction, and temperature for each station. Finally, Appendix D has hourly spatial plots of predicted and observed surface winds, portrayed as a wind vector for each grid cell of the modeling domain. There is an operational evalua tion using three methods for temperature, relative humidity, and horizontal wind components for the full year and by season.
Evaluation Method 1 considers mean and standard deviation, correlation, root mean square error, mean bias, and index of agreement; this information is stated to be in Attachment A, which is not provided. Results are stated (MMPA p. 6) to be generally well

- correlated but less so for wind components. Relative humidity is generally over

- predicted. Agreement between predictions and observ ations varies little seasonally. Evaluation Method 2 involves examination of frequency histograms for temperature, wind speed, and humidity for 24

- hour periods in alternate months. This information is stated to be in Attachment B, which is not provided. Th e MMPA states (p. 8): ― The frequency distribution of air temperature, relative humidity, and mixing ratio for observations and model results show reasonably good agreement

. There are only small differences in observed and simulated diurnal wind speed patte rns .‖ This appears to be the case for the Fresno examples given. Finally, Evaluation Method 3 consists of hourly comparisons for wind speed, direction, and temperature over two five

- day periods within each modeled month. This information is stated to be in Attachment C, which is not provided, although graphs of a December, 1990 five

day period for Fresno are shown. The MMPA (p. 9) concludes ―the model can capture the diurnal evolution of observed wind speed, wind direction and temperature variations reasona bly well,‖ despite the fact that ―the estimates for the evolution of the wind speed and direction differ somewhat. However, the examination of all figures given in Attachment C indicates that the model does capture the overall evolution.‖

Section 2 of the CARB modeling supplement (pp. 4

– 8) contains a phenomenological evaluation of the meteorological model performance, including an assessment of seasonal variation. It describes some the meteorological and topographic factors leading to high pollutant

conce ntrations. It also describes some alternate MM5 model configurations that were evaluated, including analysis nudging of the wind field, various numbers of vertical layers, and various physics model options such as the MRF, Blackadar, Gayno

- Seaman, and ETA schemes for the evolution of the Planetary Boundary Layer (PB L ) . Each configuration was evaluated using time series graphs and statistics based on simulation of a one

- week period; no one configuration was found to be superior to the others. The seasonal as sessment evaluated the MM5 simulation‘s ability to replicate phenomena important to San Joaquin Valley pollutant formation and distribution, such as slope flows, sea breezes, and low wind speeds, as well as overall wind patterns and temperature gradients. The assessment concludes that sea breezes and slope flows are replicated well, although less so for the Sacramento delta region; wind speeds tended to be a bit larger than observed, but acceptable; temperature gradients tended to be a bit smaller than obse rved; and overall flow patterns were replicated well.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 36 The overall conclusion in the Plan is that the MM5 simulations ― reproduce the overall statistical characteristics of observed meteorological conditions ‖. There is some underestimate of maximum surface t emperature, although the model is able to capture the large temperature variations that occur in some periods. EPA finds the meteorological model performance was adequate, and thoroughly documented. It is apparent that substantial thought and effort went i nto the operational evaluation, including for particular periods throughout the year, rather than just overall annual statistics. The phenomenological evaluation also is adequate, with assessment. of how well phenomena important to PM 2.5 formation in the S JV are adequately captured in the meteorological modeling, including for various locations and times of year.

i

. Emission s Inventory Air quality modeling requires emission s inputs for base case, baseline, and future modeling years

. Preparation of emissions data for air quality models for the base and future years requires several steps

. First, a state need s to compile base

- year inventories for its modeling region (e.g., the s tates and t ribes in the modeling grid)

. For PM model applications , emissio n s inventories should include emissions of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC (speciated), NO x , carbon monoxide, SO 2 , NH 3 , PM 2.5 (speciated), and PM coarse (PMC)

. Second, modelers must collect ancillary data associated with the inventories, which prescribes th e spatial, temporal, and chemical speciation information about the emission s inventory

. Third, modelers use the ancillary data for emissions modeling

. Emissions models spatially, temporally, chemically, and vertically allocate emissions inventor ies to the resolution needed by air quality model. Fourth, modelers must collect data on growth rates and existing control programs for use in projecting the base
year emissions inventor ies to the future year, and then use an emissions model to prepare that future ye ar inventory data for input to the air quality model

. Fifth, emissions inventories that reflect the emissions reductions needed for attainment will have to be prepared for air quality modeling.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s e missions inputs are discussed at p. G

- 3, an d references to the need for emissions input to modeling appear at various places in Appendix F. Page G

- 3 states

A spatially, temporally, and chemically resolved emissions inventory of combined area, mobile, and point sources was generated using the Calif ornia Emissions Forecasting System (CEFS) version 1.06 with offline adjustments

. The inventory includes emissions estimates for gaseous and particulate species of anthropogenic and biogenic origin. Gridded hourly emissions were developed for the CMAQ model ing domain for the years 2000, 2005, and 2014 (baseline).

The Plan does not include a discussion of the procedures used to spatially or temporally allocate emissions for input to the model, other than the reference to CEFS. Quality assurance methods for emissions inputs are mentioned at p. G

- 3 but not discussed: ― Quality assurance checks of domain emissions totals and spatial distribution were performed at various steps .‖ There are n o tables of modeling emissions totals for various pollutants, source groupings, subareas, or seasons . There are no maps of emission den sity or diurnal time series of emissions, which could illustrate the spatial and temporal allocation, and help in understanding PM 2.5 concent ration variations over space and time.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 37 EPA finds the modeling emissions inventory preparation procedures were adequate but sparsely documented (the preceding excerpts are essentially the full description in the Plan). It is apparent that substantial effort went into preparing emissions inputs in order for the model to have been run, but this effort is little documented in the Plan.

j

. Air Quality Model Performance

PM 2.5 consists of many components and is typically measured with a 24

- hour averaging time. Th e individual components of PM 2.5 should be evaluated individually. In fact, it is more important to evaluate the components of PM 2.5 than to evaluate total PM 2.5 itself. Apparent good performance for total PM 2.5 does not indicate whether modeled PM 2.5 is p redicted for the right reasons (the proper mix of components). If performance of the major components is good, then performance for total PM 2.5 should also be good. EPA recommends calculating statistics for components of PM 2.5 , and PM precursors. Useful me trics include mean fractional bias and mean fractional error, normalized mean bias, and normalized mean error. Formulas for estimating these metrics are given in the Guidance. (Guidance, p. 203

- 204) Other statistics such as mean bias, mean error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients, etc. should also be calculated to the extent that they provide meaningful information

. Since modeling for the PM 2.5 NAAQS will likely require modeling different times of year, season

- specific statistics and graphic displays are helpful for evaluating and diagnosing model performance. Statistics and graphics can be averaged for various time scales. For example, statistical metrics and scatter plots can show daily averaged ambient modeled pairs, monthly averaged pairs, quarterly (or seasonal averaged) pairs, or annual average pairs. Each of these averaging times can provide useful information. EPA recommends a range of different averaging times for annual or seasonal modeling. At a minimum, a state should examine daily averaged pairs and seasonal (or quarterly) averaged pairs. Because statistics and plots tend to look better as the averaging time increases from daily to monthly to quarterly to annual, daily pairs should always be examined to ensure a detailed look at mod el performance on the time scale of the FRM and STN measurements (24

- hour average). Soccer plots provide a convenient way to display a summary of model performance (including bias and error at the same time). Bugle plots 13 have variable bias and error goals , based on ambient concentrations. This allows for a higher percentage error and bias at very low concentrations. This recognizes the fact that models often have difficulty in accurately predicting near background concentrations and may be useful to priori tize examination of model performance within and near the non

- attainment area(s) of interest. Additionally, priority may be placed on examination of the days that are potentially used in the attainment test (e.g., the days > 65 μg/m 3 for 1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 ).

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s air quality model performance is discussed in the appendix ― Regional Model Performance Analysis ‖ (hereafter RMPA), starting at p. 6. Section 3.3 of the CARB modeling supplement (pp. 22

– 100) contains much additional detail.

The Plan does not include a discussion of the database used to evaluate model performance, other than many references to CRPAQS and referrals to the Central California Air

13 Fractiona l error and bias tend to be large at small concentrations, since then the uncertainty can be nearly as big as the concentration. Since fractional error varies relatively slowly with concentration, but then grows larger at low concentrations, the shape of t he plot resembles a long tube with a flared end at low concentrations, reminiscent of a bugle.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 38 Quality Studies ‘ website ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways ). (For example, ― The CRPAQS main field program collected extensive data during the period of December 1999 to February 2001 ‖ (p. F

- 32)).‖ It is know from media accounts, CARB‘s website, the District ‘s website (http://www.valleyair.org/ ) , and study reports and journal articles, that the study involved intensive metrological and air quality measurements, including measurements taken on towers and in aircraft and created a wealth of data useful for developing and evaluating model applications. The Plan contains no speciated 24

- hour PM 2. 5 data. It contains only annual data and, in one case, monthly data (in Appendix H) are provided. Three types of information were used to evaluate model performance: maps with PM 2.5 spatial patterns, performance statistics at individual monitors, and time series plots.

Filled concentration contour plots of the modeling domain are shown in RMPA, pp. 7

- 11 (figures 3

– 7), for annual PM 2.5 and four quarterly averages. Each of these has seven plots, one each for total PM 2.5 , nitrate, sulfate, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and dust . (An example is included below and shows fourth quarter total PM 2.5 .) A paragraph on RMPA p. 6 summarizes the plots, noting that nitrate formation follows the pattern expected from seasonal temperature and humidity, altho ugh third quarter nitrates appear too high. Sulfates are low for all quarters, while organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) are higher in the first and fourth quarters, presumably due to enhanced wood burning during these periods. There is no discus sion of the spatial variation of PM 2

. 5 or its components and how it compares to expectations or to monitored values.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 39 Fourth Quarter Average Concentrations f or PM 2.5

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Appendix ―Regional Model Performance Analysis

, ‖ Figure 7 , p.11.

Next the RMPA at pp. 12

- 14 discusses s tatistics for Mean Fractional Error (MFE) and Mean Fractional Bias (MFB)

, which are shown in the form of bugle plots . Each plot is for annual average PM 2.5 total or a component, and shows MFE or MFB plotted against c oncentration. CARB modeling supplement (pp. 24

– 31) shows additional bugle plots, for each calendar quarter and each chemical species component of PM 2.5 performance criteria were set at MFE ≤ 75 percent and |MFB| ≤ 60 percent. The RMPA notes that the crit eria are met for all species except dust, which is substantially overestimated for reasons that are not understood. Eight other statistics are mentioned in the modeling protocol, at p. F

- 62, such as Mean Normalized Gross Error , but no values are presented. Finally, time series plots are examined at RMPA pp. 14

- 16. Bakersfield and Fresno concentrations of PM 2.5 total and components are plotted against day of the year

- long simulation,TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 40 with a fluctuating line showing model prediction, and individual dots showi ng monitored values. CARB modeling supplement (pp. 32

– 65) shows additional time series plots showing all days of the simulation, for each of the 35 monitors, for each chemical species component of PM 2.5 ; it also has combined bar & line graphs of the mont hly average species components (pp. 66

- 99). The RMPA notes that the over

- predicted of nitrate in the third quarter is apparent, as is the overestimation of dust. The CARB modeling supplement states that the cause of this is over

estimation of specific hu midity in the meteorological model in the summer (p. 23) EPA examination of the plots also suggests that many PM 2.5 days are missed at both Bakersfield and Fresno, that organic carbon is under predicted (especially at Fresno), and that ammonium is under pr edicted. Sulfate is also often under predicted, but sulfate‘s contribution to PM 2.5 levels i n the Valley is small. Since the plots show the entire year, it is hard to judge performance during particular months or seasons.

No tables of numbers calculated fo r the performance statistics are presented, but the many bugle graphs give an excellent idea of performance for Mean Fractional Error and Mean Fractional Bias, including comparison to performance goals. Sensitivity, or diagnostic testing of the model, can check whether it responds to input changes in a physically reasonable way, whether alternative input assumptions could have improved model performance, and whether the predictions are subject to compensating errors in the inputs. These are discussed only b riefly, in the CARB modeling supplement, p. 23, which mentions numerous simulations performed to assure the credibility of the simulation; these included changing boundary and initial conditions, varying lengths of time for initial model ―spin up‖, and oth er tests. There is little discussion of qualitative assessment of whether the model is adequately capturing the various processes leading to high PM 2.5 concentration and no assessment of spatial variation of model performance, but it is apparent that subst antial effort went into evaluating the reasonableness of the simulation. EPA finds the air quality model performance is adequate, and adequately documented, though additional qualitative description of how the model is capture important phenomena would hav e been desirable.

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 PM 2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS, then this element of the attainment test is satisfied . EPA‘s 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 ratio s, relative response factors , RRF. Future PM 2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying a modeled relative response factor at locations near each monitor by the observation

based, monitor

- specific, baseline design value

. Th e resulting predicted future concentrations are compared to NAAQS.

The PM 2.5 attainment test reflects the fact that PM 2.5 is a mixture

. In the test, ambient PM 2.5 is divided into major species components , so EPA‘s test is called the Speciated Modeled Attai nment Test (SMAT)

. These are mass associated with sulfates

, nitrates

, ammonium

, organic carbon

, elemental carbon

, particle bound water

, other primary inorganic particulate matter , a nd passively collected mass . Note that FRM monitors do not measure the same components and doTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 41 not retain all of the PM 2.5 that is measured by routine speciation samplers and therefore cannot be directly compared to speciation measurements from the STN

. By design, the FRM mass measurement does not retain all ammonium nitrate and o ther semi

- volatile materials (negative sampling artifacts) and includes particle bound water associated with sulfates, nitrates and other hygroscopic species (positive sampling artifacts)

. This results in concentrations (and percent contributions to PM 2.5 mass) which may be different than the ambient levels of some PM 2.5 chemical constituents . Therefore we recommend a SMAT technique which uses an FRM mass construction methodology which results in reduced nitrates (relative to the amount measured by routine speciation networks), higher mass associated with sulfates and nitrates (reflecting water included in gravimetric FRM measurements) and a measure of organic carbonaceous mass which is derived from the difference between measured PM 2.5 and its non

- organic c arbon components

. This approach is sometimes called SANDWICH, for s ulfate, a djusted n itrate, d erived water, i nferred c arbonaceous material balance approac h . Guidance, p. 47. A separate RRF is calculated for each of the PM 2.5 components (except passive mass )

. We call each of these site

- specific ratios, a component

- specific RRF

. Future PM 2.5 design values are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying modeled relative response factors near each monitor times the observed component specific design v alue

. This latter quantity is estimated using measured site

- specific design values for PM 2.5 in concert with available measured composition data

. Future site

- specific PM 2.5 design values at a site are estimated by adding the future year values of the seven PM 2.5 components

. If all future site

- specific PM 2.5 design values are less than or equal to the concentration specified in the NAAQS, the test is passed . Guidance, pp. 15

- 16.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan ‘s annual PM 2.5 NAAQS attainment test is discussed in Chapter 3, pp. 3

- 20 and 2

- 33, and in Appendix G on ― Regional Air Quality Modelin g‖. Sections 4 and 5 of the CARB modeling supplement provides additional information on SMAT and on the development of the RRFs. A variation on EPA‘s SMAT appr oach is used, to account for the SJV‘s abundance of ammonia and the dominance of ammonium nitrate over ammonium sulfate. This variation is to assume that ammonium on the monitor filter is the measured STN NH 4 minus any losses associated with fully neutrali zed nitrate (as NH 4 NO 3 ) that may have volatilized off the FRM filter . 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. G

- 10. Sections 4 and 5 of the CARB modeling supplement (pp. 100

– 103) provide additional justification for the approach, with graphical comparisons showing that

meas ured ammonium is equal to the amount needed to neutralize measured nitrate and sulfate. The 2006 design values and the results of the SMAT for 2014 baseline conditions and for the result of new emissions controls are shown in Chapter 3, Table 3

- 3 (p. 3

- 23) and Appendix G, Table 3 (p. G

- 21) of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. The 2014 controlled design value is seen to be less than the annual NAAQS level of 15 μg/m 3 for every monitor, thus demonstrating attainment. The highest 2014 value is 14.7 μg/m 3 at the Bakersfield Planz Road monitor. The RRFs, and details of their calculation are presented in section 5 of the CARB modeling supplement, pp. 103

- 104, and RRF tables at pp. 104

- 115.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS attainment test is discussed in the same place as the attainment test for the annual standard, with results in Appendix G, Table 4, p. G

- 22. Appendix G, Table 4 shows the 2006 design values for Bakersfield and Fresno monitors and the projected 2014 design values for the controlled case. Since the 2006 design values areTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 42 already below the 1997 24

- hr NAAQS level of 65 μg/m 3 , the controlled values are, too. The highest 2014 value is 46.2 μg/m 3 at the Bakersfield California Avenue monitor

. The Relative Reduction Factors are presented in section 5 of th e CARB modeling supplement, at pp. 117

- 138.

The attainment tests show attainment of both PM 2.5 NAAQS. The Plan cites several factors as justifying a variation on EPA‘s SMAT approach (e.g., the prevalence of ammonia, the dominance of ammonium nitrate, the e ffect of substantial controls on fugitive dust and direct carbon emissions (p. G

- 10 and p. 3

- 20)) and the CARB modeling supplement shows the approach is reasonable for the ammonium ion. The RRFs are presented for each monitoring station and calendar quarte r. EPA find s the attainmen t demonstration is adequately documented, and that it projects attainment by 2014 for both the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS.

l

. Unmonitored Area Analysis
In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, EPA recommends use of an unmonitored area analysis. This type of analysis is intended to ensure that a control strategy leads to reductions in ozone or PM 2.5 at other locations which could have baseline (and future) design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed ther e. The unmonitored area analysis should identify areas where future year design values are predicted to be greater than the NAAQS. The unmonitored area analysis for a particular nonattainment area is intended to address potential problems within or near th at nonattainment area. The analysis should include, at a minimum, all nonattainment counties and counties surrounding the nonattainment area (located within the state). In order to examine unmonitored areas in all portions of the domain, EPA recommends tha t a state use interpolated spatial fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. Guidance, p. 29. Gradient adjusted spatial fields are first created for the base year. Future year estimates can then be created by applying gridded RRFs to th e gradient adjusted spatial fields. The basic steps are as follows (Guidance, p. 30) :

1. Interpolate base year ambient data to create a set of spatial fields. 2. Adjust the spatial fields using gridded model output gradients (base year values). 3. Apply gridded mod el RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. 4. Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAAQS in the future.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s u nmonitored a rea a nalysis is discussed on page G

- 15. It takes the form of a simple screening analysis, ex amination of a filled concentration contour plot (Figure 3 on p. G

- 20), and the observation that ― there are no areas with steep gradients that would result in higher design values than those measured at monitors ‖.
In addition, section 6 of the CARB modelin g supplement (pp. 139

- 182) contains an Unmonitored Area Analysis in the sense of the EPA Guidance, using EPA‘s Model Attainment Test Software (MATS). It includes spatial contour plots of quarterly and annual average concentrations for simulated PM 2.5 components for the 2005 base year (pp. 141

- 147), and comparable plots for the 2014 attainment year, including concentrations adjusted by the gridded model output gradients from MATS. CARB examined locations where the gradient implied high values. In one case, Modesto 14 th Street, the location already had a monitor, and modeled resultsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 43 there, and so did not strictly speaking need to pass the test. MATS and direct modeled results for the Bakersfield area appear to match, so CARB believes MATS results are r eliable for that area, and MATS did not predict any unmonitored violation. For the Fresno area, there appeared to be a 15

- 25 percent overestimate by MATS, based on 2005 measured values; discounting the MATS future high value in an unmonitored location west of Fresno by that amount led CARB to believe that this area, too, will not have an unmonitored PM 2.5 NAAQS violation. EPA finds that CARB has shown that SJV successfully passes the test in the Unmonitored Area Analysis.

m. Weight of Evidence

States shoul d perform complementary analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data and consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. Such analyses are instrumental in guiding the conduct of an air quality modeling application. Th e results of corroboratory analyses may sometimes 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 c ontrary evidence produced by corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that implied by the modeled attainment test results. Guidance, p. 17. Supplemental analyses could include additional modeling using alternative models and input s, modeling apportionment and process analysis tools, alternative metrics (such as change in the number of grid cells above the NAAQS), trends in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, receptor modeling, and indicator species approaches.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan ‘s weight of evidence determination is discussed in Appendix H. Supplemental analyses used in the weight of evidence determination are described in that Appendix and also in Chapter 3, Appendix F, and the appendix on ― Receptor Modeling Documentation ‖ (here after RMD). As mentioned near the start of this TSD section on modeling, the Plan emphasizes a receptor modeling

- based approach for the attainment demonstration, with photochemical modeling added later. However, EPA views the receptor modeling mainly as a supplemental analysis to corroborate the photochemical modeling as part of the weight of evidence determination

. Chapter 3 describes three variants of a speciated rollback approach (p. 3

- 23). Method 1 is based on Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling of PM 1 0 speciated measurements from the year 2000; this was converted to 2005 PM 2.5 values, which are in turn projected to 2014, with some adjustments described below. This method is applied to the Fresno

, Kern , Kings, and Tulare County monitors. Method 2 is sim ilar but is based on speciation data from the years 2004

- 2006. This method is applied to the Fresno and Kern monitors only. The third method is based on a Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) using speciated data from the years 2003

- 2006. This method is app lied to the Fresno and Kern monitors only. Thus Fresno and Kern County monitors have all three methods applied, Kings and Tulare Counties have only Method 1 applied.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 44 Table B

- 1 

### Guidelines For Weight of Evidence Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment

Test Supplemental Analyses

Annual PM 2.5 24

- Hour PM 2.5

Future Design Value < 14.5 μg/m 3 , all monitor sites Future Design

Value < 62 μg/m 3

, all monitor sites Basic supplemental analyses should be

completed to confirm the outcome of the modeled attainment test

Future Design Value 14.5

- 15.5 μg/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid cells Future Design

Value 62

- 67 μg/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid cells A weight of evidence demonstration should be

conducted to determine if aggregate supplemental analyses support the modeled attainment test

Future Design Value > 15.5 μg/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid cells Future Design

Value > 68 μg/m 3

, at one or more sites/grid cells More qualitative results are less likely to support

a conclusion differing from the outcome of the modeled attainment test.

All three of these approaches included various adjustments and projection to 2014 (and in some cases intermediate years). The adjustments included consideration of the emissions inventory in order to attribute PM 2.5 in a more refined way than the CMB and PMF approaches could by themselves, as the latter cannot always distinguish between different sources of a given chemical species. There is little text discussion in the Plan of how this refinement was done. Adjus tments are also made considering the area of influence of each monitor in order to further refine which sources were relevant to particular monitors. There is no text definition of area of influence and no discussion of the procedure followed, other than a diagram and formula at RMD, p. 79, though the meaning of this diagram and formula is not clear. Another adjustment involved modeled sensitivity factors from CMAQ nitrate modeling (and linear nitrate projection and IMS95 modeling‖) were used to estimate th e response of the atmosphere to changes in NO x emissions. This was an attempt to address the inability of straight speciated rollback to handle secondary particulates, as they are not directly associated with emitted species from sources. It is not clear e xactly to which modeling exercises these refer. In addition there is discussion of variations on SMAT (p. 3

- 21), involving ― approved alternate linear assumptions ‖ on trapped
water bonded to ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate and other issues, but it is not clear how this was done. The execution of much of this is in the spreadsheet in the RMD; however, there is very little documentation on the spreadsheet and its formulas. The r esults from all these adjustments are in Table 3

- 2, p. 3

- 22, which lists for each county the 2005 design value,

― Rece ptor Modeled SMAT RRF 2005

- 2014‖ based on the methods just described, and a projected 2014 design value. For all counties the value is less than 15 μg/m 3 the level of theTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 45 annual NAAQS. The highest 2014 value is 14.09 μg/m 3 , for Kern County based on the PMF method. EPA finds that the ideas used to refine the receptor modeling results are reasonable ways to address shortcomings of receptor mode ling, especially for an area for which secondary particulates are so important. The results do support the attainment demonstration, and it is apparent that substantial thought and effort went into applying the methods. However, documentation for the appro aches used is confusing, not well organized, and in some cases missing altogether. Without improved documentation, it is difficult to assess the strength of this supplemental analysis. Appendix H. ―Weight of Evidence‖ describes several other supplemental a nalyses. These include tables (pp. H

- 5

- H

- 4), bar charts (p. H

- 5), a Theil regression trend test (p. H

- 5) and time series plots (p. H

- 6 and p. H

- 10), all showing a downward trend in 24

- hour and annual PM 2.5 concentrations. Monthly time series (pp. H

- 7

– H

- 8) comparing 2001 to 2006 for Bakersfield and Fresno show substantial decline in PM 2.5 during the winter months (summers remained about the same). Histograms (p. H

- 9) comparing frequency distributions for various concentration ranges from the years 1999

- 2 001 to those in 2004

- 2006 for Bakersfield and Fresno show decreases in the frequency of the highest concentrations. This decrease is clearest for Fresno, which also shows increased occurrence of low concentrations. (Mid

- range concentrations, between 15 and 40 μg/m 3 are more of a mixed picture.) Species and total PM 2.5 trends (pp. H

- 14

– H

- 15) also show declines over 2001

- 2006, principally in carbonaceous aerosols, but also in ammonium nitrate. The increased stringency of the Residential Wood Combustion Rule that was implemented in 2003 is cited as one of the causes of the decline (p. H

- 14). Further evidence of a downward trend in nitrate during 1987

- 2005 is shown in additional graphs (p. H

- 17). Emissions are also trending down, as seen in a 2001

- 2005 time se ries plot for emitted species, especially for NO x and for reactive organic gases. An indicator species analysis plots the Angiola and Fresno winter 2000

- 2001 concentrations of NH 3 (ammonia) against that of HNO 3 (nitric acid). It is the combination of these two that forms ammonium nitrate PM 2.5 . Ammonia concentrations are almost always far higher than those of nitric acid, and also vary over a much larger range than nitric acid. This is evidence that nitric acid is the limiting precursor, with some implicati ons for the advisability of controls of NO x emissions as opposed to ammonia. Finally, Appendix H (p. H

- 25) discusses the receptor modeling and photochemical modeling results already covered above.

EPA finds that the supplemental analyses presented in Appendix H are useful in a weight of evidence, and support the demonstration of attainment.

3. Conclusion s

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan with the CARB modeling supplement adequately document s all the elements of a model ed attainment demonstration

. Significant time, money, and effort by CARB, the District, and many others have gone into preparing the air quality modeling to support the attainment demonstration in SJV PM 2.5 plan for the San Joaquin Valley, including the multi

million dollar CRPAQS study. EPA finds tha t the modeling is sound and provides an adequateTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 46 basis for the reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. During the comment period on our 2011 proposal, we received a number of comments

o bjecting to our proposed conclusion that the air quality modeling in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP provides an adequate basis for the various demonstrations in the SIP . After reviewing these comments, we continue to find that the air quality modeling is adequate for SIP purposes. We summarize and respond to these comments in section III.C. of this TSD.

4. Pollutant Ratios Used to Determine PM 2.5 Equivalency

The 2011 Progress Report and the SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report use a PM 2.5 equivalency metric in a number of tables and demonstrations. Two ratios are used:

9 tpd NO x to 1 tpd direct PM 2.5 1 tpd SO x to 1 tpd direct PM 2.5
The NO x :PM 2.5 ratio is partly documented in supplemental information provided by CARB, entitled ―Precursor Effectiveness,‖ which is available in t he docket for this rule. Using the CMAQ modeling application used for the attainment demonstration, in two separate runs CARB simulated an additional 10 percent reduction in modeling doma in NO x emissions and in direct PM 2.5 emissions. These PM 2.5 effects were divided by the (unstated) emissions totals for each pollutant, to give a concentration per emissions change, or effectiveness for each pollutant, and finally the direct PM 2.5 effectiv eness was divided by the NO x effectiveness to arrive at a NO x :PM 2.5 ratio for each monitor; the average of these is about 9. This method appears to be adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area

- wide emissions changes, such as are used in RFP, co ntingency measures, and conformity budgets. 14 The method modeled ―across the board‖ emission changes over the entire modeling domain; emissions considered in transportation conformity are also domain

- wide. Trading in other contexts could involve addition al consideration of spatial and temporal variation of the emissions and would require an additional technical demonstration by the State and evaluation by EPA. EPA is not approving the trading ratio for any other purpose than for transportation conformity. The approach used by the District to estimate interpollutant equivalency ratios rests on the faulty assumption that ambient sensitivity to emissions reductions of a given precursor can be estimated as the ratio of concentration to emissions. This is the a ssumption of linear ―rollback‖,

14 E PA is approv ing the use of this NO x to PM 2.5 interpollutant trading rat io to meet CAA planning requirements for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. EPA is a pproving the use of this ratio in transportation conformity determinations for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS but only until such time EPA fi nds adequate or approves budgets developed specifically for the 2006 standard. EPA is not approv ing the use of this r atio in plans for future PM standards or in the District‘s new source review (NSR) permitting program.
The District recently submitted revisions to its NSR rule

, Rule 2201, which require that interpollutant trading ratios used for purposes of satisfying PM 2.5 NSR offset requirements first be approved by EPA into the SIP. See Rule 2201 (April 21, 2011), section 4.13.3.2 . The Rule 2201 submittal also states that the District intends to submit SJV

- specific PM 2.5 interpollutant trading ratios for EPA‘s approval in a future SIP revision but will, in the i nterim, require project proponents to use the default ratios provided in the preamble to EPA‘s PM 2.5 NSR rule ( 73 FR 28321

, 28339 (May 16, 2008)) , until alternativ e trading ratios are approved by EPA into the SIP. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 2201 (New And Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), March 17, 2011, p. 4.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 47 and inherently cannot address the complexities of PM 2.5 formation chemistry, which is nonlinear. It is in contrast to the State‘s approach for the NO x : PM 2.5 ratio which used photochemical modeling results to take into accou nt such nonlinearity. Even if the ambient PM 2.5 response to precursor reductions is in fact linear for a range of emissions reductions, that response does not necessarily match the average response assumed in rollback. (Similarly, the slope of a curve at a given point does not necessarily match the slope of the line connecting the curve's end points.) Ambient concentration might be very responsive initially and less responsive with greater reductions, or vice versa; both would appear as the same responsiven ess under the faulty linear rollback assumption. Some strengths of the District's methodology are that it attempts to account for multiple monitors, the portion of each monitor's ambient concentration that is likely subject to local controls, the emissions that are in the monitor's area of influence and have the strongest affect on its concentration, and the time of year (4th quarter of the years) having the highest emissions and concentrations. See Ratio Documentation p.1; Ratio spreadsheet; and SJVAPCD Ma y 2009 letter, attachment II pp. 4, 8. 15 In addition, it makes use of information on the contribution of broad source categories to particular locations, which were available at the time from the receptor modeling approach, and not from the photochemical mo deling. SJVAPCD May 2009 letter, attachment II, p. 6, 9. Finally, the District did try to assess how results might change during the 2005

- 2014 period. SJVAPCD May 2009 letter, attachment II, p. 8. These positive features are improvements within the confine s of the receptor modeling approach, but they cannot compensate for the faulty underlying assumption discussed above. Two other potential problems in the approach are worth noting. First, the sensitivity to direct PM 2.5 emissions is based on organic carbon (OC), partly because OC is the main pollutant for which interpollutant offsets are sought in the context of New Source Review permitting in the SJV. SJVAPCD May 2009 letter, attachment II, p.2). It is not clear whether this is the appropriate basis for evaluating equivalency for air quality planning purposes including contingency measures, and whether the sensitivity to other types of direct PM 2.5 emissions would result in different ratios. Second, it is not clear what emission level to use in the concentration per emissions sensitivity ratio. For SO x , the District uses 2.97 tpy, the average of the 1.337 and 4.598 tpy for the ―12

- Ke‖ and ―Kern‖ areas of influence, respectively. See ratio spreadsheet. The average may be r easonable to use within the confines of the approach, but for a given set of conditions, either of the two tons/year ratios might be more appropriate, with the result that the sensitivity, and the overall interpollutant ratio, could vary by a factor of abo ut 3.5. It is not clear how any of these ratios relates to actual sensitivity of ambient PM 2.5 to emissions changes. EPA does not find that the approach used by CARB and the District to develop the SO x :PM 2.5 ratio is adequate for determining interpollutant equivalency ratios and is not approving its use for any SIP purposes. This issue would be better explored with a photochemical model.

15 See document ―Atmospheric Interpollutant Equivalency betwe en Direct Particulate Emissions and Secondary Particulate Formed from Gaseous Sulfur Oxide Emissions‖ ( SJV SOx PM2.5 ratio final2.doc )

, spreadsheet ―Interpollutant Calculation‖ ( SJV SOX PM2.5 ratio.xls ) , and letter from David Warner, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to Mr. Joseph Douglas, California Energy Commission, May 27, 2009, Attachment II, ―Interpollutant Offset Ratio Explanation‖ ( SJVAPCD_AEP_IP_Ratio_20090527.pdf ).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 48 During the comment period on our 2011 proposal, we received a number of comments objecting to allowing the use of interpo llutant trading for any purpose. After reviewing these comments, we continue to find that the limited use of the 9:1 NO x to PM 2.5 interpollutant trading ratio is approvable for transportation conformity purposes. We summarize and respond to these
comments in section III. D . of this TSD.

5. E ffect of Inventory Changes on the Air Quality Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations

As discussed above in section V.A., CARB has recently updated the inventories for several mobile source categories for both the base an d future years as well as revised the economic forecasts on which the future inventories were based. Ideally, new attainment demonstration modeling would be performed to evaluate the effect of these updates and revisions; however, remodeling is a substanti al undertaking and would not necessarily change the basic conclusions of the existing attainment demonstration analysis. Relative to emissions in the Plan, the decreases in the base year 2005 emissions inventory due to the inventory updates are about 6 per cent for NO x and 5 percent for direct PM 2.5 emissions; the 2014 attainment year target emissions levels are unchanged. See Table B

- 2. Emissions decreases in the base year tend to reduce the relative effect of controls and increase the projected PM 2.5 conce ntrations in the attainment year. We now know that base year emissions estimates were slightly too high, yet the model matched the observed concentrations in that year. With those higher emissions, the base year modeling should have predicted higher

concen trations. The model, therefore, has a tendency to predict slightly lower concentrations than it should. To compensate for this model under

- prediction, the predicted attainment year concentration should be slightly higher than shown in the Plan. Using model sensitivity results provided by CARB (Table B

- 3), EPA estimates that predicted ambient concentrations would be higher by only about 2.5 percent due to the emission inventory revisions, and predicted design values still attain the NAAQS. See Table B

- 4. EPA therefore concludes that the attainment demonstration remains valid, despite the emission inventory changes

. During the comment period on our 2011 proposal, we received a number of comments objecting to our proposed conclusions that revisions to the inventory did not invalidate the modeling. After reviewing these comments, we continue to find that the attainment demonstration remains valid. We summarize and respond to these comments in section III.C. of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 49 T able B

- 2 

### Changes to Base Year and Attainment Year Emissions Levels

(tons per annual average day)

2005 Base Year 2014 Attainment Year

NO x Direct

PM 2.5 NO x Direct PM 2.5
Unrevised from 2008 P lan 575.4 86.0 291.2 63.3

Revised from Progress Report 540 82 291.2 63.3

C hange

- 35.4

- 4.0 0.0 0.0

P ercent change

- 6.2%

- 4.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Notes: 1. Unrevised 2005 base year emissions from: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan App. B Table B

- 3 at p. B

- 11, and Table B

- 2 at p.B

- 7 2. Unrevised 2014 attainment year emissions from: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 8

- 1 3. Revised 2 005 base year from: Progress Report supplement, Attachment 1 4. 2014 Progress Report emissions are same as Plan: emission target did not change.

Table B

- 3 

### Effect on M odeling o f Base Year Emissions Changes

Site Plan

M odeled 2014 D esign Value 2014 DV with 10%

A dditional R eductions Concentration Change

P er % E mission C hange D ue to B ase Y ear

E mission C hanges Total

NO x Direct

PM 2.5 NO x Direct

PM 2.5 NO x Direct

PM 2.5 Site 1 (Bakersfield

California) 14.3 14.1 13.6 0.02 0.07

- 0.12

- 0.33

- 0.45

Site 2 (Bakersfield

- Planz) 14.7 14.6 14 0.01 0.07

- 0.06

- 0.33

- 0.39

Site 3 (Bakersfield

Golden) 14.4 14.2 13.7 0.02 0.07

- 0.12

- 0.33

- 0.45

Notes: 1. Plan modeled design value and design value with additional reductions are from 2011 Progress Report supplement, Attachment 3 2. Total concentration change a ssumes that changes due to the individual pollutants can be added to get total change; this assumption is acceptable to 1st orderTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 50 Table B

- 4 

### Effect on Attainment Y ear Design Value of Base Year Emissions Changes

Site Measured 2006

D esign Value Fractional

E ffect on D esign Value Percent effect

on D esign Value Plan Modeled

2014 D esign Value Scaled 2014

D esign Value

Site 1 (Bakersfield

California) 18.5 1.025 2.5% 14.3 14.7

Site 2 (Bakersfield

- Planz) 18.9 1.021 2.1% 14.7 15.0

Site 3 (Bakersfield

Golden) 18.6 1.025 2.5% 14.4 14.8

Notes: 1. Fractional effect of emissions changes revising base year emissions DOWN translates to scaling UP attainment year PM 2.5 ; the measured base year concentration was caused by emissions being lower than previously thought; effect is to make it harder to attain. Fractional effec t was c alculated as the reciprocal of (2006 DV plus Total emissions change, divided by 2006 DV) 2. Effect would be reversed for emissions revisions in target year, but no effect in this case since target emissions are unchanged.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 51 

### C. PM 2.5 

### Attainment Plan Precursors

1. Requirements for the Control of PM 2.5 Precursors

EPA recognizes NO x , SO 2 , VOC , and ammonia as the main precursor gases associated with the formation of secondary PM 2.5 in the ambient air . These g as

- phase precursors undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form secondary particulate matter

. Formation of secondary PM 2.5 depends on numerous factors including the concentrations of precurs ors; the concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric conditions including solar radiation, tem perature, and relative humidity ; and the interactions of precursors with preexisting particles and with cloud or fog droplets . 72 FR 20586

, 2058 9. As discussed previously, states must include submit emissions inventor ies for each of the four PM 2.5 precursor gases in order to assure the information on all pollutants and precursors that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations is available. 72 FR 20586

, 2 0589 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1). However , the overall contribution of different precursors to PM 2.5 formation, and the eff ectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary by location . Thus the precursors a state should regulate for attaining the PM 2. 5 NAAQS will also vary to some extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586

, 20589.

In the PM 2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not make a finding that all potential PM 2.5 precursors must be controlled in each specific nonattainment area

. See 72 FR 20586

, 20589. Instead, for reasons explained in the rule, a state must evaluate control measures for sources of SO 2 in addition to sources of direct PM 2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control measures for sources of NO x unless the state and/or EPA determine that control of NO x emissions would not significantly reduce PM 2.5 concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(2). By contrast, EPA has determined in the PM 2.5 implementation rule that states do not need to address controls for sources of VOC and ammonia unless the state and/or EPA make a technical demonstration that such controls would significantly contribute to reducing PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). Such a demonstration is required ―if the administrative record related to development of its SIP shows that the presumption is not technically justified for that area.‖ 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(5). Significant contribut or in this contex t means that a significant reduction in emissions of the precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a significant reduction in PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area . 72 FR 20586

, 20590 . Although EPA did not establish a quanti tative test for determining the significance of such a change, EPA noted that even relatively small reductions in PM 2.5 levels are estimated to result in worthwhile public health benefits . Id

. EPA further explained that a technical demonstration to reverse the presumption for NO x , VOC, or NH 3 in any area could consider the emission s inventory, speciation data, modeling information, or other special studies such as such as monitoring of additional compounds, receptor modeling, or special monitoring studies

. 72 FR 20586

, 2059 6

- 20597. These factors

c ould indicate that the emissions or ambient concentration contribution of a precursor, or the sensitivity of ambient concentrations to changes in precursor emissions, differs in the specific nonattainment area from the presumption for that precursor in the PM 2.5 implementation rule.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 52 2. Identification of PM 2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and EPA‘s Evaluation

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify the pollutants that have been selec ted as PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors as this term is defined in 40 CFR § 51.1000

. The Plan addresses only NO x and SO 2 in the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the District‘s RACM/RACT analysis and thereby implicitly identifies NO x and SO 2 , but not V OC and ammonia

, as attainment plan precursors

. It does include supporting documentation for the inclusion of NO x as an attainment plan precursor and for the exclusion of ammonia. As discussed below, i t has conflicting information about the impact of contro l ling VOC as a precursor for PM 2.5 attainment. However, supplemental information provided by CARB makes clear that the State does not consider VOC to be a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor and provides supporting documentation for that position.

Precursor re lationships are discussed in the Plan‘s ―Executive Summary‖, Chapter 3

― What is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment? ‖, Chapter 7 ― Local, State, and Federal Controls ‖, Chapter 8 ― Reasonable Further Progress ‖, Appendix F ― SJV PM 2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol ‖, Appendix G ― Regional Air Quality Modeling ‖, Appendix J ― Comments and Responses ‖, and the additional appendix ― 2014 Receptor Modeling Documentation‖ (―RMD‖). The most detailed discussion is in Appendix F, p. F

- 53 ff , with the main points repeated in Chapter 3, p. 3

- 8 ff . The RMD presents additional evidence regarding precursors. Finally, supplemental information on VOC is presented in a CARB comment letter on EPA‘s 2010 proposal. See letter, James Goldstene, CARB, to Frances Wicher, EPA, January 31, 2011, atta chment 4 (CARB VOC supplement). As mentioned above, ambient contribution and ambient sensitivity to emissions changes may both be considered in determining whether the presumption for an attainment plan precursor should be reversed. The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan con tains numerous qualitative statements that San Joaquin Valley‘s ambient PM 2.5 is dominated by ammonium nitrate (NH 4 NO 3 ), and that NO x reductions are more effective at reducing ambient PM 2.5 than reductions in the other precursors. Most of those statements are in Chapter 3 and Appendix F and are based on excerpts of findings from CRPAQS . Several of the excerpted and cited CRPAQS documents are available at CARB‘s

― Central California Air Quality Studies ‖ web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways

. For ambient c ontributions of precursors to the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, the Plan contains qualitative descriptions but no quantitative data, although it does refer to ― CRPAQS data for the year 2000 is available at the C ARB website http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways ‖. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. F

- 59.

For the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, the Plan contains some qualitative description of precursor ambient contribution. For example, it states on p. 2

- 8 that annual concentrations are driven by wintertime concentrations, and further, that the highest short term concentrations are driven by ammonium nitrate, as found in the CRPAQS:TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 53

For most of the sites within the SJV, 50

– 75% of the annual average PM 2.5 concentration could be attributed to a high PM 2.5 period occurring from November to Janu ary

. a t non

- urban sites, the elevated PM 2.5 was driven by secondary NH 4 NO 3
. 16

There is also quantitative data in Appendix G, Table 2. ― Percent Composition Ratio Based on 2000 Average CRPAQS Data ‖ (p. G

- 21), using measurements from the Speciation Trends Netw ork (STN). The RMD also has projected 2014 species composition in data tables (at RMD pp. 1

- 70) and pie charts (at RMD pp. 71

- 28), based on various adjustments to Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) modeling results. Ammo nium nitrate for 2000 monitored data ranges from 24

- 36 percent of total PM 2.5 , and if projected to 2014 ranges from 36

- 51 percent, confirming the importance of NO x , one source of nitrate, as a precursor that significantly contributes to annual PM 2.5 levels in the SJV. In addition to composition data, ambient sensitivity to emissions changes can also be a consideration in determining which species should be regulated in the SIP for an area as attainment plan precursors

. For ammonium nitrate PM 2.5 , which is f ormed from both ammonia and NO x , a key issue is the effectiveness of emissions reductions of either or both precursors at reducing PM 2.5 concentrations

. Among the findings cited by the Plan that address this issue are:

― Particulate NH 4 NO 3 concentrations ar e limited by the rate of HNO 3 formation, rather than by the availability of NH 3 ‖

and ―Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid concentrations show that ammonia is far more abundant than nitric acid, which indicates that ammonium nitrate formation is limited by the availability of nitric acid, rather than ammonia...

. This study's analyses suggest that reductions in NO x emissions will be more effective in reducing secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol concentrations than reductions in ammonia emissions

. Reductions i n VOC emissions will reduce secondary organic aerosol concentrations and may reduce ammonium nitrate...

. The results indicate ammonium nitrate formation is ultimately controlled by NO x emission rates and the other species, including VOCs and background ozone , which control the rate of NO x oxidation in winter, ra ther than by ammonia emissions.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan p. 3

- 10.

These findings are based on the relative amounts of ammonia and nitrate: there is so much ammonia present that even substantial reductions of a mmonia emissions would still leave ample ammonia for forming ammonium nitrate. On the other hand, NO x is scarce (relative to ammonia), so reducing it will reduce ammonium nitrate significantly.

16 Quote from ―Initial Data Analysis of Field Program Measurements,‖ DRI Document No. 2497, July 29, 2005; Judith C. Chow, L..W. Antony Chen, Douglas H. Lowenthal, Prakash Doraiswamy, Kihong Park, Steven D. Kohl, Dana L. Trimble, John G. Watson, Desert Rese arch Institute.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 54 Finally, sensitivity results from photochemical modeling were used in conjunction with the CMB results mentioned above, though it is not clear which particular modeling was used. The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan states at p. 3

- 15:

The first regional assessment used the Urban Airshed Model, modified to address aerosol chemistry (U AM

- AERO). This assessment used the IMS

- 95 dataset (an early component of CRPAQS) to evaluate a monitored event of nitrate particulate formation

. Regional modeling was also conducted for the later 2000

- 2001 CRPAQS data, providing an update to the PM 10 recep tor modeling projections in 2006. A third round of regional modeling with the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model has been completed by CARB .... If this provides a different regional photochemistry analysis for nitrate formation, the receptor mod eling estimate s for nitrates will be reviewed.

The RMD section on ― Review of control strategy effectiveness supported by CMAQ nitr ate particulate evaluation‖ shows the projected result of a 50 percent reduction in NO x emissions on the annual PM 2.5 concentr ation and on PM 2.5 concentrations in shorter episodes in several seasons. For the annual concentration, the NO x reduction gave a predicted 5 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 reduction, while for the winter episode the predicted reduction was 28 μg/m 3 for the 24

- hour period RMD, p. 80. A similar evaluation is also done for to analyze the effect of a 50 percent reduction in ammonia emissions: the corresponding PM 2.5 predicted reductions for annual and winter were only 0.1 μg/m 3 and 0.3 μg/m 3 , respective ly. See RMD, p. 81. When compared to the annual and 24

- hour NAAQS of 15 and 65 μg/m 3 , respectively, the effect of NO x reductions appear to be significant while the effect of ammonia reductions do not. Thus the data and modeling results presented in the 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan, as well as the results of the cited studies, support the identification of NO x as an attainment plan precursor, and the exclusion of ammonia, consistent with the EPA presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule.

As to VOC , EPA presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule is that VOC need not be an attainment plan precursor

. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3)

. As explained in the preamble to the rule, however, this presumption may not be technically justified for a particular nonattainment

area, i.e., this presumption may be incorrect where emissions of VOC significantly contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area . 72 FR 20586

, 20590

- 93, 20596

- 97

. States or EPA may conduct a technical demonstration to reverse the presumptive exclusion o f VOC as a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor based on the weight of evidence of available technical and scientific information

. Id.

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan contains conflicting information on whether , for the SJV nonattainment area, VOC should be considered as a potential PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor

. Several passages suggest that it should be. On an annual basis, Table 2 in Appendix G (p. G

- 21) gives an organic carbon range of 38

- 49 percent of the total PM 2.5
. This organic PM 2.5 can be further divided into ve getative burning (9

- 19 percent of total annual PM 2.5 ), direct VOC PM 2.5 emissions (also 9

- 19 percent of total annual PM 2.5 ), and secondary organic aerosols (2

- 5 percent of total annual PM 2.5 ). RMD , p. 19

. This SOA contribution to overall PM 2.5 levels appea rs to be

non

- negligible. The Plan states: ―Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) contribute to a significant fraction of PM 2.5 . SOA is organic carbon particulate formed in the photochemical oxidation ofTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 55 anthropogenic and biogenic VOC precursor gases

. Aromatic c ompounds are believed to be efficient SOA producers contributing to this secondary particulate.‖ 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p.3

- 8

. On a 24

- hour episodic basis, the contribution of SOA could be higher than the annual 2

- 5 percent, though it is likely lower for the win ter episodes of most concern in the SJV, due to decreased photochemical activity when fog and clouds partially block sunlight

. The chemistry of SOA is less well understood than the chemistry of other chemical species, so overall these considerations

are no t enough to overcome the negative presumption for VOC. But as noted in the preamble to the PM 2.5 implementation rule at pp. 20592

- 20593, the lightest organic molecules can participate in atmospheric chemistry processes resulting in the formation of ozone and certain free radical compounds (such as the hydroxyl radical [OH]) which in turn participate in oxidation reactions to form secondary organic aerosols, sulfates, and nitrates

. That is, VOC may be a PM 2.5 precursor not just via formation of SOA, but al so via its participation in the oxidant chemistry that le ads to nitrate formation, a necessary step in the formation of ammonium nitrate PM 2.5
. NO x emissions must be oxidized to nitric acid (HNO 3 ) before they form particulate ammonium nitrate

. Two pathways for this to occur are 1) daytime oxidation by OH, which VOC radicals help create, and 2) nighttime oxidation by ozone, with N 2 O 5 as an intermediary. 17

The discussion in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan regarding ammonium nitrate (at p. 3

- 10, quoted above) also refers t o VOC, which is identified as one of the controlling factors in NO x oxidation, the key process in the formation of nitrate and then ammonium nitrate PM 2.5 . The Plan also stated: ―Relatively low non

- methane organic compounds (NMOC)/NO x ratios indicate the d aytime pho tochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and background

- ozone limited in winter.‖ Id . If nitrate formation is VOC

- limited under some circumstances, then VOC emissions reductions could lead to ambient PM 2.5 reductions. Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains sensitivity analyses for VOC, similar to the ones described above for NO x and ammonia. According to the sensitivity analysis, the effect of a 50 percent reduction in VOC emissions was predicted reductions in PM 2.5 levels of 1.3 μg/m 3 for on annual basis, a nd 8.7 μg/m 3 for the (24

- hour) winter episode. When compared to the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m 3 and the 1997 24

- hour NAAQS of 65 μg/m 3 , these projected reductions appear significant. The RMD concludes with ―Finding: VOC reduction is effective for the an nual standard and the winter episode for reduction of total carbon secondary particulates.‖ In addition, NO x and VOC reductions may have a synergistic effect, such that the ambient PM 2.5 benefit would be more than expected from looking at the pollutants in dividually. We note that this effect could be explored with the CMAQ model, but the hybrid CMB

- CMAQ approach used in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan would not be suitable for such evaluations. Despite the above portions of the Plan implicating VOC as an attainment pla n precursor, the Plan also contains statements explicitly rejecting that position. In response to comments on the VOC issue made during the District public comment period, the Plan stated: ―ARB modeling has shown that VOC reductions are not as effective in reducing secondary PM 2.5 as NO x or SO 2 reductions,‖ and ―[a]ll of the technical evaluations for CRPAQS and prior assessments of regional particulate models have indicated that NO x is the dominant factor and VOC and ammonia are not.‖ 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, pp.J

- 9 and p. J

- 19

. These statements do not cite the specific

17 Lurmann, F. et. al. , 2006, op cit. , p. 1688.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 56 modeling and technical evaluations they are based on, but do reflect the District‘s conclusion after completing the analyses in the Plan, namely that VOC should not be considered a n attainment plan p recursor

. Supplemental information provided by CARB confirmed this conclusion: ― VOC emission reductions are ineffective in reducing PM 2.5 at current ambient concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley... VOC should not be considered a significant PM 2.5 precur sor in this instance ‖. CARB VOC supplement . p.1. As explained above, although EPA‘s presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule is that VOC need not be a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, this presumption may not be technically justified for certain nonattainment areas

. Indeed, technical information in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan strongly suggests that VOC reductions can significantly reduce ambient PM 2.5 concentrations and contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

The above statements from the PM 2.5 Plan indicating VOC is a significant precursor may not constitute a technical demonstration sufficient to reverse the PM 2.5 implementation rule
pre sumption against VOC

. Clearly they were not intended as such by the State, in view of various other statements in the Plan

. Nevertheless, they are part of the administrative record related to development of the SIP, constitute evidence showing that the VOC presumption may not be technically justified, and indicate that the State should submit a demonstration to either support or reverse the presumption under the PM 2.5 implementation rule that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor. 40 CFR §51.1002(c)(5).

I n view of conflicting statements about VOC in the Plan , and in the a bsen ce of a technical demonstration by the State, EPA reviewed the results of several modeling and monitoring studies of the San Joaquin Valley . For this action EPA also reviewed interpret ations of these same studies provided in the CARB VOC supplement. Some of the reviewed documents are available on the ―Central California Air Quality Studies‖ web site at www.arb.ca.gov/airways or are cited in the Plan

, and are reports from contractors inv olved in CRPAQS

. Others are papers from peer

- reviewed journals and are analyses using data from CRPAQS or from the earlier IMS95 study

. Four monitoring studies and six modeling studies were found to be relevant to the VOC precursor issue and are discussed further below. The monitoring studies all contain evidence that the VOC pathway for nitrate creation is important at least some of the time but differ on the how important it is relative to other pathways such as the nighttime ozone pathway, and are not co nclusive on the efficacy of VOC controls

. Unlike the monitoring studies, most of the modeling studies explicitly assessed the relative effectiveness of precursor controls . They generally found that VOC controls could be effective at reducing ambient PM 2.5 for some times and places, though there were also findings of little benefit or even a disbenefit in some cases. The monitoring studies examined time series of various pollutants annually and during severe winter PM 2.5 episodes

. The monitoring studies wer e not all aimed at assessing the relative effectiveness of precursor controls, and insofar as they addressed that issue, they focused more on the relative importance of ammonia and NO x controls, rather than on VOC v ersus . NO x controls

. They nevertheless do contain some tentative conclusions about VOC

. The monitored relative abundances of precursors and other intermediate chemical species can yield information on the chemical processes occurring and their relative importance

. For example, nitrate concentrati ons far below those of ammonia are evidence that the formation of particulate ammonium nitrate is limited by NO x emissions rather than by ammonia emissions. (Lurmann et. al., 2006)

. The concentration of nitric acid ( HNO 3 ) relative to peroxides suggests the prevalence of VOC

- limited OH and nitrate formation relative to VOC

- abundant conditions (Pun, 1998)

. TheTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 57 correspondence of daytime ozone and nitrate PM 2.5 peaks for rural sites is evidence that they are driven by a common process, daytime NO x oxidation via NO x and VOC

- driven oxidant photochemistry (Pun, 2004) . However, a later study concluded t hat this correspondence could also be explained by ozone transport or by daytime entrainment of nighttime nitrate formed aloft (Lurmann et. al., 2006) . The Plan quote d this study‘s somewhat generic statement that ― daytime photochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and background

- ozone limited in winter ‖, but also its conclusion that ―entrainment of aerosol nitrate formed aloft at night may explain the spatial homogeneity of nitr ate in the San Joaquin Valley‖. Lurmann, F. et. al., p.1688 , cited at 2008 PM 2.5 Plan p. 3

- 10 ; also cited on CARB VOC supplement, p.5. This study recognized the importance of the nighttime ozone pathway for nitrate formation leading to PM 2.5 , a pathway tha t is not directly affected by VOC emissions reductions. The monitoring studies provide evidence that VOC

- limited processes contribute to PM 2.5 formation, but are not conclusive on the efficacy of VOC controls. By contrast, most of the six relevant modeling studies did explicitly assess the relative effectiveness of precursor controls, though again they tended to emphasize ammonia m ore than VOC

. One study did not directly address the issue, but stated that background ozone was the most important oxidant, imp lying that VOC control would have little effect (Ying et. al., 2009)

. The CARB VOC supplement cited this study (p.5), and CARB has stated that CARB staff involved in the CRPAQS study share this view. See ftn 11

. The other five studies explicitly evaluated precursor controls, simulating the PM 2.5 effect of 50 percent reductions in emissions of NO x , ammonia , and VOC

. The two earliest of these studies used photochemic al box models; one found VOC control to be ineffective (Stockwell, 2000), while the other found it effective (Pun and Seigneur, 2001) . However, the CARB VOC supplement (p.6) noted that the Pun and Seigneur study used a doubled VOC inventory to improve mode l performance, so that it should not be weighted too heavily in making conclusions about the effectiveness of VOC reductions. The later three studies used more sophisticated photochemical grid models, and generally found VOC control to be effective , at lea st for some times and places , though generally less so than NO x control

. One of the photochemical grid modeling stud ies predicted VOC control to be about 2/3 as effective as NO x control (17.5 percent benefit from VOC vs. 25 percent from NO x ), though VOC disbenefits occurred at some smaller reductions (Kleeman, Ying, and Kaduwela, 2005) . In addition, in its VOC supplement, CARB drew attention to various NO x vs. VOC isopleth diagrams in the study, which contain curves showing the PM 2.5 effect of various com binations of NO x and VOC reductions. The flat or upward

- tilting curves show that for the more realistic situation of NO x and VOC reductions occurring simultaneously, VOC reductions show very little PM 2.5 benefit, and even a disbenefit at greater NO x reduct ions. CARB VOC supplement, Figs. 2 & 3, pp. 7

- 8, facsimiles of Figs. 3 & 5 in Kleeman, Ying, and Kaduwela , reproduced below. CARB suggests that the disbenefit may occur because in this case a VOC reduction reduces VOC

- nitrate chemical reactions that form o rganic nitrates such as PAN; by lessening this nitrate ―sink‖, VOC reductions leave more nitrate available to form PM 2.5
. CARB VOC supplement, p.7TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 58 24

- hour NOx/VOC particulate isopleths, μg/m 3

Source: Kleeman, Ying, and Kaduwela

, 2005, portion of Figure s 3 and 5

A second study predicted VOC control to be effective, though only by a relatively small amount, at most 10 percent , or just for certain days (Pun, Balmori, and Seigneur, 2009) . CARB pointed out that the days for which there is a VOC sensitivity are those with the highest PM 2.5 levels, which occur toward the end of the modeled episode, and that this is likely due to a different chemical regime during the high PM 2.5 days. An alternative, that the sensitivity is somehow a resul t of cumulative carryover of pollutants during the seven day episode, is stated to be unlikely, since 1) a large VOC photochemical contribution to nitrate formation would be expected to be accompanied by a daily rapid ozone increase that was not observed, and 2) there is little day

- to

- day carryover of reactive VOC or of VOC radical products such as OH and HO 2 (hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl). CARB VOC supplement, p.10. These statements are not supported by quantitative evidence, but in any case, it is apparent t hat there is something chemically different between the 12/25

– 12/28 period of the 2000 episode, and the 12/28

– 12/31 period; there is significant sensitivity to VOC only toward the end of the episode, when total PM 2.5 is about 80 μg/m 3 for Angiola, and about 100 μg/m 3 for Bakersfield. CARB VOC supplement, Fig.5, p.11, reproduced below. If the daytime VOC

- driven OH route for NO x oxidation to nitrate were important, VOC sensitivity would be expected throughout the whole episode, not just the latter half wi th the highest PM 2.5 concentrations.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 59 Time series with daily observations, base case simulation results and results from four sensitivity cases of nitrate and P M2.5 at Angiola and Bakersfield

Source: Pun, Balmori, and Seigneur, 2009 , Fig. 2.

The import ance of this lack of VOC sensitivity for lower PM 2.5 concentrations for assessment of VOC as a plan precursor is CARB‘s point that ―nitrate was only responsive to a 50 percent reduction in VOCs at PM 2.5 concentration levels that are no longer reached in th e San Joaquin Valley... the Valley is now in a nitrate chemical formation regime that is less responsive to VOC controls .‖ CARB VOC supplement , p. 10. This implies that the study results are of limited relevance. According to monitoring data in EPA's AQS database, there were 172 PM 2.5 daily maximum v alues over 80 μg/m 3 during 1999

- 2002; by contrast, there were only 24 maxima over 80 μg/m 3 during 2007

- 2010

. 18 The decreased frequency of high values lends support to th e CARB position, but does not imply the study results are irrelevant. It does appear, however, that there is complexity to PM 2.5 formation in the SJV that is not fully understood, and this study did not consider the more realistic scenario of VOC and NO x r eductions occurring together. The third grid modeling study predicted VOC control to give slightly more benefit than NO x control (23 percent for VOC vs. 21 percent for NO x ) (Livingstone et. al., 2009) . CARB pointed out that, of the various scenarios modele d in this study, the most realistic one showed a PM 2.5 benefit of only 12 percent from a 50 percent VOC reduction, and a 38 percent benefit from a 50 percent NO x . CARB VOC supplement, p.9. While the models, assumptions, input data, and results differed bet ween these studies, they provide evidence that control of VOC by itself can significantly reduce ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley, at least for some times and locations. However, some

18 EPA's Air Quality System, Violation Day Count Report, May 13, 2011.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 60 studies show little benefit, or even a disbenefit from VOC controls. The only study that thoroughly explored the effect of simultaneous VOC and NO x reductions, a more realistic scenario given the control measures that are in place, showed a VOC disbenefit, especially for larger NO x reductions. There is so me indication that VOC sensitivity is less important for more recent episodes, with lower PM 2.5 . Finally, there also appears to be a partial consensus in the latest work, and in the most important monitoring study, that the nighttime ozone route for nitrat e formation is more important than the VOC

- sensitive daytime OH route. Altogether, the currently

- available evidence does not amount to a technical demonstration that VOC should be considered a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor. Since there remains substantia l uncertainty about the efficacy of VOC reductions, and even some danger of a disbenefit from additional VOC reductions, EPA finds that the PM 2.5 implementation rule presumption that VOC is not an PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor should remain in place for the time being. It is unfortunate that the only study that explored the combined effect of NO x and VOC reductions predated CRPAQS, the most comprehensive PM 2.5 study for the SJV so far. It is also unfortunate that modeling tools such as process analysis we re not used to investigate the change in chemical regime that appears to occur at higher PM 2.5 concentrations, and the relative roles of the daytime and nighttime NO x oxidation routes. It would be highly desirable for future modeling efforts, such as for the attainment demonstration needed for the new PM 2.5 standard, to explore precursor effectiveness more definitively.

Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Pun and Seigneur

, 1998 monitored IMS95 data p. E

- 3 Since only a small fraction of NO x is converted to HNO 3 ... it was possible that the oxidation system was limited by the availability of oxidants

. During wintertime, these oxidants may be sensitive to VOC rather than NO x . However, these inferences need to be confirmed. p. E

- 4 However, further research is needed to understand the production of oxidants during the fall sea son and to assess the sensitivity of oxidants and HNO 3 to VOC and NO x precursors. p. 3

- 14 Typical concentrations of HNO 3 ... and H 2 O 2 ... suggest that the oxidant chemistry of the San Joaquin Valley may be in the VOC

sensitive regime during the winter season

. This result is preliminary...TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 61 Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Stockwell et al.

, 2000

box model using 1997 emissions p. 4715 decreases in the VOC emission rate have little effect

Pun and Seigneur

, 2001

box model on 3

- day IMS95 episode

, 4

- 6 January 1996 p. 2979 The concentration of particulate matter (PM) nitrate was found to be sensitive to reductions in VOC emissions. ... Oxidant chemistry in wintertime conditions in the San Joaquin Valley was shown to be VOC

- sensitive. p. 2984 the production of secondary PM i s greatly reduced when the VOC emissions are halved... A 50% reduction of VOC emissions reduces peak OH and O 3 concentrations by as much as 20%. The resulting N 2 O 5 concentrations are more than proportionately reduced, and consequently, the rate of HNO 3 pro duction by this pathway is considerably reduced. p. 2987 Our box model simulations point to the fact that PM formation in the SJV during winter is HNO 3 - sensitive, that HNO 3 formation is oxidant

- sensitive, and that oxidant formation is sensitive to reductions in VOC emissions.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 62 Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Pun , 2004

monitored CRPAQS data p. 2 During winter, high concentrations of PM 2.5 and O 3 occur together in [rural] Angiola because daily peak concentr ations for both species occur during the day on many days with high PM concentrations

. The diurnal cycles of winter PM and O 3 at the urban sites [Fresno and Bakersfield] show a phase difference between these two pollutants. In Angiola, nitrate is the domin ant component of winter PM 2.5 and the daytime peaks of PM 2.5 are caused by daytime peaks in PM 2.5 nitrate concentrations

. Since daytime conditions are comparatively less favorable for nitrate to partition into the particulate phase, peak concentrations dur ing the 1 to 4 p.m. period are strongly indicative of a daytime chemical process occurring at this site. The difference in the nitrate diurnal profiles in Angiola and at the urban sites indicates that the dominant processes contributing to the observed sur face nitrate concentrations may be different at urban and rural sites

. Transport from aloft was assumed by Watson and Chow (2004) to account for a morning increase in nitrate concentrations at the Fresno supersite. p. 31 There is some evidence that chemica l production of nitrate occurs at the surface during the day

. It is postulated that the daytime chemical process for the production of nitrate involves OH radicals or nitrate radicals, if it persists due to slower photolysis during the wintertime

. Reliable measurements of NO 2 and HNO 3 and additional measurements of nitrate radicals may be needed to evaluate the feasibility of the nitrate reaction.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 63 Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Kleeman, Ying, and Kaduwela , 2005

UCD/CIT model on 3

- day IMS95 episode

, 4

- 6 January 1996 p. 5325 A 50% reduction in NO x emissions applied to sources within the SJV reduced the predicted concentration of total nitrate by approximately 25% during the study episode...

. A 50% reduction in VOC emissions lowered predicted concentrations of total nitrate by 17.5%, while a 50% reduction in NH 3 emissions lowered predicted concentrations of total nitrate by only 10%. p. 5332 at Fresno... VOC controls actually increase the amount of particulate nitrate produced by upwind sources under the conditions experienced on 6 January, 1996. p. 5332 at Kern Wildlife Refuge..

. The total concentration of nitrate increases slightly as VOC is scaled downward and then decreases with greater VOC reduction. ..

. A 50% reduction in VOC concentrations at Kern Wildlife Refuge leads to a pr edicted decrease in particulate nitrate concentrations of approximately 25

– 30% pp.5336

- 5338 a 50% reduction in NO x emissions reduces maximum particulate nitrate concentrations by approximately 12 μg / m 3 ...VOC and NH 3 emissions controls are not as effective as NO x controls for particulate nitrate... a 50% reduction in VOC emissions reduces ground level particulate nitrate concentrations by only 7 μg / m 3 ... a 50% NH 3 emissions reduction reduces ground level particulate

n itrate concentrations by only 4 μg / m 3

McCarthy , 2005

monitored CRPAQS data p. 18 Daytime HNO 3 production rates are limited by sunlight, VOCs, and background ozone Nighttime HNO 3 production is limited by background ozone which is abundant aloft but not at the surfaceTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 64 Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Lurmann et al. , 2006

monitored CRPAQS data p. 1679 [―implications‖ sidebar] Reductions in VOC emissions will reduce secondary organic aerosol concentrations and most likely contribute to reductions in ammonium nitrate concentrations. p. 1688 The results indicate that ammonium nitrate formation is controlled by the formation of nitric acid and, therefore, ultimately controlled by NO x and VOC emission rates and background O3 concentrations that control the rate of NO x oxidation

. This analysis i s not able to assess the relative benefits of controlling NO x or VOC emissions for reducing nitric acid levels. p. 1689 The average diurnal pattern of nitrate at Sierra Nevada Foothills is one that could be expected from photochemical activity, yet the aft ernoon nitrate peak at this site is more likely because of transport of pollution from the SJV than photochemistry

. The average diurnal pattern for the three core sites in the SJV (Fresno, Bakersfield, and Angiola) suggests that the daytime nitric acid pro duction is relatively slow. p. 1690 V alley

- wide nighttime production of ammonium nitrate aloft followed by daytime entrainment into the surface layer could explain the spatial homogeneity of wintertime ammonium nitrate levels in the SJV p. 1690 Continuous aerosol nitrate data, in conjunction with NO and O 3 data, suggest that both daytime and nighttime nitric acid formation pathways are active in the SJV. pp. 1690

- 1691 The CRPAQS data examined here tend to support the valley

- wide nighttime production aloft h ypothesis. p. 1692 Estimated secondary organic aerosol concentrations are small compared with concentrations of likely VOC precursors; however, the estimated secondary portion of PM 2.5 OC and PM 2.5 mass is significant in several locations.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 65 Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Pun, Balmori, and Seigneur , 2009

CMAQ

– MADRID model on 1

- week CRPAQS episode

, 25

- 31 December 2000 p. 402 Nitrate was only weakly sensitive to reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions. p. 402 A control strategy that focuses on NO x and PM emissions would be effective on average, but reductions in VOC and NH 3 emissions would also be beneficial for certain times and locations. p.405 Reductions in anthropogenic VOC led to decreased O 3 concentrations at both urban and rural sites

. However, there was virtually no effect on OM p. 408 The reduction in NO x emissions by 50% induced a strong response in nitrate concentrations

. At the rural site, nitrate reductions approached 50% on average, and the time series in Fig. 2 shows a consistent decrease throughout the episode

. At Bakersfi eld, reductions were of the order of 30

– 45% and were less than linear. p. 408 As discussed previously, the reduction of anthropogenic VOC emissions reduced O 3 concentrations in both urban and rural locations

. However, nitrate concentrations were less sensi tive to anthropogenic VOC emissions than to NO x emissions on average. Reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions consistently caused small reductions in nitrate in the urban areas, even when nitrate increases resulted from reductions in NO x emissions. Rural nitrate concentrations were quite insensitive to anthropogenic VOC emissions on some days. [Fig. 2 shows at most 10% reduction in PM 2.5 peaks at Angiola and Bakersfield

. ] p. 408 an effective control strategy for PM 2.5 in the SJV that is comprehensive in t ime and location may require controls of multiple precursors rather than a single key precursor.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 66 Table C

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitor ing Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM 2.5 Study and Basis Quotes from Study
Ying, L u, and Kleeman , 2009

UCD/CIT model on 3

- week CRPAQS episode

, 15 December 2000 to 7 January 2001 p. 424 The NO x is not immediately transformed into nitric acid/ NH 3 nitrate due to slow photochemical reactions in the winter

. Background ozone is the most important oxidant for reactive nitrogen with gradual conversion of NO x to particulate nitrate over several days.

L ivingstone et. al.

, 2009

CMAQ model on 3

- week CRPAQS episode, 17 December 2000 to 7 January 2001 p. 5971 We found that emission reductions of NO x and AVOC [anthropogenic VOC] showed similar effects on percentage basis in different areas, and both are more effective than reducing NH 3 for abating elevated concentrations of accumulation mode PM in California Central Valley during the winter episode.

p . 5971 [excerpt from] Table 1. Model results for ammonium nitrate at a Bakersfield station

. Sensitivity of two

- week average (ammonium + nitrate) to precursor reductions [precursor] [response]

- 50% NO x - 21% PM 2.5

- 50% AVOC

- 23% PM 2.5

- 50% NH3

- 8.8% P M 2.5 p. 5976 The fine aerosol concentration was more sensitive to AVOC than NO x in small areas around a Bakersfield station with high concentrations of accumulation mode PM

Notes: CRPAQS and IMS95 are described on the Central California Air Quality Studies web site, http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/crpaqs/publications.htm CPAQS is the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study, a field study conducted from December 1999 through February 2001. IMS95 is the 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study, a field study that included a four week winter sampling program in December 1995 and early January 1996. Central California Air Quality Studies web site, CRPAQS Documents and Publications page: http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/crpaqs/publications.htm
Studies cited i n table are: Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, ―Control strategies for the reduction of airborne particulate nitrate in California's San Joaquin Valley‖, Atmospheric Environment, 39: 5325

- 5341 September 2005

. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.0 44TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 67 Livingstone, P.L., et. al., 2009, ―Simulating PM Concentrations During a Winter Episode in a Subtropical Valley and Sensitivity Simulations and Evaluation methods‖, Atmospheric Environment, 43: 5971

- 5977

. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.033 Lurmann, F.W. , Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., and Roberts P.T., 2006, ―Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley During Winter‖, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 56: 1679

- 1693. McCarthy, M., 2005, ―The Role of Nighttime Chemistry in Winter Ammonium Nitrate Formation in the San Joaquin Valley‖, presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR), Supersites Conference, February 2005, Atlanta, GA

. Available on CRPAQS web page listed above; direct link: http:/ /www.arb.ca.gov/airways/Documents/AAAR/2005/mccarthy_nitrate_present.pdf Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 1998, ―Conceptual Model of Particulate Matter Pollution in the California San Joaquin Valley‖, prepared by Atmospheric and Environmental Research for Pacif ic Gas & Electric, Document Number CP045

- 1

- 98, 8 September 1998. Available on CRPAQS web page listed above; direct link: http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/Documents/reports/sjvpmc~1.pdf Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 2001, ―Sensitivity of Particulate Matter Nitra te Formation to Precursor Emissions in the California San Joaquin Valley‖, Environmental Science and Technology, 35: 2979

- 2987

. doi: 10.1021/es0018973 Pun, B., 2004, ―CRPAQS Task 2.7 When and Where Does High O 3 Correspond to High PM 2.5 ? How Much PM 2.5 Corr esponds to Photochemical End Products?‖, prepared by Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. for the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency

. Available on CRPAQS web page listed above; direct link: http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/crpaqs/worksh op/AER2.pdf Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, ―Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation in Central California‖, Atmospheric Environment, 43: 402

- 409

. doi: doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.040 Stockwell, W.R., Watson, J.G., Robinson, N .F., Steiner, W., and Sylte, W.W., 2000, ―The Ammonium Nitrate Particle Equivalent of NO x Emissions for Continental Wintertime Conditions‖, Atmospheric Environment, 34: 4711

- 4717

. doi:10.1016/S1352

- 2310(00)00148

- 5 Ying, Q., Lu, J., and Kleeman, M., 2009, ― Modeling air quality during the California Regional PM 10 /PM 2.5 Air Quality Study (CPRAQS) using the UCD/CIT source

- oriented air quality model

- Part III. Regional source apportionment of secondary and total airborne particulate matter‖, Atmospheric Environ ment, 43: 419

- 430, January 2009

. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.033.

3. Conclusion s

EPA concurs with the evaluation in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan that, at this time, ammonia does not need to be considered an attainment plan precursor for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The information submitted by CARB raises legitimate questions about the extent to which VOC emissions contribute to ambient PM 2.5 concentrations in SJV

, and other existing information on the contribution of VOC emissions to ambient PM 2.5 levels in the SJV, do not provide a basis for reversing the presumption that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor. Accordingly, EPA maintain s the presumption that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor in the SJV for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards , in the absence of a clear technical demonstration that the presumption is incorrect. 19 We note that because the SJV is designated as nonattai nment for the

19 In its approval of the SJV 2003 PM 10 plan, EPA determined that for the purposes of section 189(b)(1)(B) and (e) and in the absence of final data from CRPAQS, VOC does not contribute significantly to PM 10 levels which exceed the standards in the SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 (May 26, 2004). In that determination, EPA relied on the criteria that VOC control was not shown to be absolutely necessary for PM 10 attainment and that it had a lower effectiveness than NO x control in reduction PM 10 . In addition, EPA noted in its 2004 final rule the Distric t‘s intention to re

- examine the VOC issue when CRPAQS results were available. 69 FR 30006, 30010.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 68 8

- hour ozone standard, this area is already required to adopt VOC control measures for ozone purposes, which may provide a co

- benefit for PM 2.5 concentrations. See 72 F R 20586, 20593. We received a number of public comments disagreeing with our finding that there is no clear technical documentation that supports reversing the presumption that VOC is not a attainment plan precursor for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. These comments did not provide any substantive new information or interp retation of the existing data that would lead us to a different conclusion. We summarize these comments and provide full responses in section III.D. of this TSD. It should be noted that EPA‘s concurrence on excluding ammonia and VOC as attainment plan pre cursors is limited to the attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard in 2006 to lower it to 35 μg/m 3 and is currently reviewing both the annual and 24

- hour standards to determine if they should be further lowered to protect public health. See EPA, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter NAAQS, Second External Review Draft, June 2010. Evaluation of ammonia and VOC controls for the attainment of the 2006 standard and any future lower standards may show that s uch controls would significantly contribute to lower PM 2.5 levels in the Valley.

Since its 2004 finding, EPA promulgated the PM 2.5 implementation rule, which has an explicit criterion for determining which PM 2.5 precursors must be evaluate d for controls, namely, that a significant change in emissions of the precursor would be projected to provide a significant change in PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment

area. See 72 FR 20586

, 20590 and 40 CFR § 51.1000. This is a different criterion than the one relied on in the 2004 determination. Data and analyses from CRPAQS have also become available.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 69 

### D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology

1. Requirement s for RACM/RACT

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minim um, of reasonably available control technology [RACT]), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ We interpret reasonably available control measures (RACM) in CAA section 172(c)(1) as referring to measures of any type that may be applicable to a wide range of sources, whereas the parenthetical reference to reasonably available control technology (RACT) refers to measures applicable to stationary sources

. Thus, RACT is a type of RACM specifically designed for
st ationary sources

. 72 FR 20586

, 20610. EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, on

road and non

- road emission source categories that meets the following criteria: the control measure is (1) technologically feasible, (2) economically feasible, (3) does not cause ―substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts

, ‖ (4) is not ―absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable

, ‖ and (5) collectively can advance the attainment date by at least one year

. 72 FR 20586

, 20610

. We de fine RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular stationary source is capable of meeting by the application of technology (i.e., devices, systems, process modification s , or other apparatus or techniques that reduce air pollution) that is reaso nably available considering technological and economic feasibility

. 72 FR 20586

, 20610.

For PM 2.5 attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined approach to RACM and RAC T under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA

. Under this approach, RACM/RACT are measures that a
state finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practica ble in its nonattainment area

. Thus, what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM 2.5 attainment plan is closely tied to that plan‘s expeditious attainment demonstration. 40 CFR § 51.1010; 72 FR 20586

, 20612

. By definition, measures that are neither necessary for meeting the RFP requirement nor help ing an area attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable are not
requ ired RACM/RACT

. A state ‘s attainment plan must include a list of measures considered and information sufficient to show that a state has met all requirements for determination of RAC M /RAC T

. 72 FR 20586

, 2061 2

. A state must evaluate RACM/RACT for each ident ified PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor. Under this combined approach, EPA considers RACT be part of an area' s overall RACM obligation

. Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4 of title 1, Part D of the CAA , does not identify specific source categories for which EPA must issue control technology documents or guidelines for what constitutes RACT or identify specific source categories for state evaluation during attainment plan development. 72 FR 20586

, 20610

. Because of the variable nature of the PM 2.5 problem between nonattainment areas, which may require states to develop attainment plans that address widely disparate circumstances, EPA determined that a state should have flexibility with respect to RACT and RACM controls but also that in areas needing significant emission sTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 70 reductions to attain the standards, RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach attainment as expeditiously as practicable

. 72 FR 20586

, 20612 and 20615

. The d eterminat ion of RAC M /RAC T is a three

- step process: (1) identifying techn olog ically and economically feasible measure s and associated emissions reductions, (2) conducting air

- quality modeling and related analyses, and (3) selecting RAC M /RAC T

. 72 FR 20586

, 2061 3

. Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state‘s SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state‘s attainment plan for the area

. 72 FR 20586

, 20614. The first step, identification of potential measures, should be based on an inventory of emissions of direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors from the range of relevant sources and source categories

. 72 FR 20586

, 2061 3

. A s tate is required to evaluate RACM/RACT for direct PM 2.5 and SO 2
. A s tate is also required to evaluate RACM/RACT for NO x sources unless it finds that such sources do not significantly contribute to the PM 2.5 levels in its area

. 72 FR 20586

, 20613

. Significantly contribut e in this context means that a significant change in emissions of the precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a significant change in PM 2.5 concentrations in the area

. 72 FR 20586

, 20590. In the preamble to the PM 2.5 implementation rule, EPA provided a recommended list of the types of source categories and control measures that may be appropriate for evaluation given the local source mix and attainment needs of a specific area

. 72 FR 20586

, 20621.

Techn olog ic al feasib ility refers to whether there are available measures capable of reducing emissions of PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors or both

. A number of factors are considered in this analysis, such as process and operating conditions, raw materials, physical plant layout, no n

air quality and energy impacts, and the time needed to install and operate controls

. 72 FR 20586

, 20618

. Economic feasibility refers to whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the source or source category

. A number of factors are considered in t his analysis, such as cost per ton of pollution reduced, capital costs and annualized cost

. 72 FR 20586

, 2061 9

.

2

. RACM/RACT Analysis in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy are the latest in 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

. 20 These planning efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of rules and programs that address the vast majority of emissions sources in the Valley

. Many of these District and State rules are among the most stringent in the nation.

For the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV‘s eight metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a process to identify and evaluate potential reasonably available control measures that could

20 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 the 2007 Ozone Plan (submitted November 16, 2007).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 71 contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV

. We describe each
agenc y‘ s efforts below.

a. District RACM/RACT Analysis The District‘s RACM/RACT analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendix I of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. The analysis focused on controls for the categories of stationary and area sources under the District‘s direct jurisdiction

. To identify potential RACM/RACT, the District reviewed potential measures from a number of sources including but not limited to: EPA‘s list of potential P M 2.5 control measures (in the PM 2.5 implementation rule preamble ); control strategies and measures from other districts and agencies, including the South Coast AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, and Ventura County APCD ; further study measures in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan ; measures suggested by the public including those recommended by the International Sustainable Systems Research Center (ISSRC) in its draft document ―Clearing the Air: A Path to Clean Air by 2017 ,‖ dated August 2007 ;

rec ommendations from CARB‘s 2003 audit of the District ; and recommendations from the 2007 CARB staff report, ―Accelerating Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley‖ November 6, 2007.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan, pp. 6

- 6 to 6

- 8. The identified potential measures, as well as e xisting District measures, are described by emissions inventory category in Appendix I

. These measures address emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x and SO x . See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 6

- 8 and Appendix I

. Potential RACM/RACT controls for VOC or ammonia were not specifically identified or evaluated

. From this set of potential controls, the District developed a Stationary Source Regulatory Implementation Schedule (2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6

- 2) which gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of the selected RACM/RACT measures

. See also Table F

- 1 of this TSD

. The schedule was developed based on a variety of factors, including:

t echnological feasibility and practicality of emission controls;

m agnitude of emissions from the source category and likely e mission s reductions (where possible to determine) ;

c ost, financial impacts, and potential for socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, profitability); District authority and enforceability of emission s reductions; rate and timing of emissions reductions; public acceptability, including interests and concerns of community members; pollutants reduced

– NO x , PM 2.5 , VOC, SO x , or multiple pollutants; any potential adverse environmental impacts; and

. potential for disparate environmental impacts (environmental justice).

2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 6

- 7.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 72 The District also identified a number of source categories for which feasibility studies to refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls would be done

. These categories and the schedule for studying them are given in Table 6

- 4 of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and Table F

- 6 of this TSD

. The Plan also includes descriptions of the District‘s incentive programs (which target on

and off

- road engine replacement with an emphasis on diesel engines), its innovative strategies
program including its Fast Track emissions reductions measures

, and public education efforts

. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, pp. 6

- 13 to 6

- 23. See also , SJV PM 2.5 Progress Repor t, sections 2.3 and 2.4

. Since submittal of the 2008 PM 2.5 plan, the District has adopted a numb er of measures intended to meet its commitments and provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT.

b

. Local Jurisdictions ’ RACM Analysis The local jurisdictions‘ RACM/RACT analysis was conducted by the SJV‘s eight MPOs

. 21 This analysis, which focused on potential NO x emissions reductions from tran sportation control measures (TCM) and builds on the work done for the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

. TCMs are generally measures designed to reduce emissions from on

- road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or traffic congestion

. The results of the MPOs‘ analysis are described in Chapter 7 of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. For the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV MPOs developed a l ocal RACM strategy which consisted of two parts: (1) evaluation of potential RACM fo r advancing the 8

- hour ozone standard attainment date and (2) the adoption of a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) policy to fund cost

- effective emission s reduction s projects.

For the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the MPOs reviewed and updated the evaluation of potential RACM from the 2007 Ozone Plan following EPA‘s guidance in the PM 2.5 implementation rule preamble

. The evaluation is documented in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan on pp. 7

- 8 to 7

- 11 and included the following steps: Step 1: Identification of potential new measures: The MPOs reviewed the measures in the 2007 Ozone Plan, EPA ‘s draft list of PM 2.5 measures ( see 72 FR 20586

, 20621 )

, and other SIPs including the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the New Jersey 2007 SIP

. No new measures were identified that had not already been considered in the 2007 Ozone Plan. Step 2: Calculat ion of the possible emissions reductions from potential TCM : Given the nature of the PM 2.5 problem in the SJV, the analysis focused on NO x to assess whether the reductions from th ese TCM c ould a dvance attainment

. It did not look at potential emissions reductions of direct PM 2.5 , SO x , VOC, or ammonia

. I n the 2007 Ozone Plan, emission s reduction s estimates were calculated for the list of possible local TCM

. The maximum feasible emission s reduction s for NO x estimated from implementing all of th e se TCMs are approximately 7 tons per day (tpd) in 2020 and 5 tpd in 2023

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7

- 10

. Th e se estimates a re based on the maximum travel reductions that

21 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and the Kern Council of Governments

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 73 could be expected from the applicable measures and the average gram/mile emission rate of light

- duty vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and light

- duty trucks) operated during the summer.

These summer time estimate s for NO x reductions for 2020 and 2023 needed to be adjusted to reflec t 2013/2014

. Du e to the benefits of fleet turnover and increasingly stringent motor vehicle emission standards, the fleet average emission rates in 2020 and 2023 are projected to be lower than those in 2013/2014

. This means the NO x reductions estimated in 2020 and 2023 underestimate the reductions that could be produced in earlier years

. Using a ratio of fleet average NO x emission rates f or light

- duty vehicles in 2013 to 2020 (2.07), maximum reductions a re estimated to produce a reduction of roughly 14 tpd in 2013 (assuming the same level of travel reductions apply in 2013 as did in 2020 and 2023)

. 22 Unlike ozone levels which are higher in the summer time, PM 2 .5 levels in the SJV are higher in the winter time

. Because

m obile source NO x emissions are higher in the summer than winter

, NO x reductions for summer will be higher than for the winter

. Thus, a pplying the reductions estimated for the summertime to the wintertime to evaluate whether the implementation of TCM would advance attainment in the SJV is conserv ative (i.e., over estimate the potential emissions reductions)

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan,
p. 7

- 10. Step 3: The emission s reduction s estimates were compared against the attainment demonstration to determine if they collectively advance attainment by a ful l year

. Using Table 9

- 1 from the draft PM 2.5 plan, it was estimated that an addition al 93.1 23 t ons per average annual day of NO x emission s reductions would be necessary in 2013 to advance attainment of the PM 2.5 standard by one year which is considerable more than the estimated 14 tpd of potential NO x reductions from TCM

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7

- 11. Based on the above analysis, the MPOs determined that there were no additional local RACM , beyond those measures already adopted , that wou ld advance attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and thus no additional adoption of measures was necessary

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7

- 11. The eight MPOs did adopt a CMAQ policy that includes developing a standardized process across the Valley for distributing , beginning in FY2011, 20 percent of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost

- effectiveness

. This policy focuses on achieving the most
cost

- effective emission s reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7

- 8.

22 The methodologi es and assumptions used to derive this number overstate the true potential reductions from reasonable TCMs in the SJV. For example, one assumption used is that the effectiveness of measures (e.g., transit improvements) will be the same in rural areas as th ey are in urban areas, even though TCMs are generally much less effective in rural areas. See Sierra Research, Reasonable Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis

, March 5, 2007, pp. 2

- 3 (which may be found in Appendix C of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan).

23 Calculated as the 2013 controlled level of emissions (394.3 tpd) minus the attainment level (291.2 tpd). Values from 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 9

- 1. Based on the information in the 2011 Progress Report, this value would be 1 5 .6 tpd after adjustments due to the recession and updated estimates of reductions from District‘s adopted controls. See Table E

- 2 of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 74 c

. State’s RACM Analysis CARB describes its proposed strategy to reduce emissions from sources within its jurisdiction

– on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, fuels, and consumer products

– - in Chapter 3 of the 2007 State Strategy

. Califor nia has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards for most categories of on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances only to a waiver by EPA under CAA section 209. CARB developed its proposed statewide strategy after an extensi ve public consultation
process to identify potential SIP measures

. This process is described in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

, p. 7

- 11

. It included a SIP Symposium in October 2006 and a workshop in November 2006 to discuss development of potential control concepts for meeting the federal 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. 24 CARB made available a draft of the 2007 State Strategy for public review in April 2007 and then conducted a series of public workshops on the draft

. On April 26, 2007, C ARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes based on further staff analysis and public comments

. CARB Resolution 0 7

- 28, p. 3. From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new defined measures to address California‘s ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment problem

. 2007 State Strategy, p. 6 5 and CARB Resolution 7

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8

. These measures focus ed on cleaning up the in

- use ( ― legacy ‖ ) fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emission s sta ndards for a number of engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle fuels and consumer product s

. M any, if not most of these measures

, we re being proposed and adopt ed for the first time anywhere in the nation

. They buil t on CARB‘s already comprehensive program to address emissions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x , VOC , and SO x from all types of mobile sources, through both regulations and incentive programs , as well as from fuels and consumer products

. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38

. Table D

- 1 lists these measures and include s one additional measure each from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Table D

- 2 provides the list of these measures as updated in the 2011 Progress Report.

24 More information on this public process including presentations from the workshops and symposium that proceeded adoption of the 2007 State Strate gy can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/ 2007sip.htm.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 75 Table D

- 1 

### 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration

Ozone and PM 2.5 

### Measures

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Expected Implementation
Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 2008 By 2010

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2008

- 2014 2008

- 2014

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 Phase

- in starting 2010

Cleaner In

- U se Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 2010

- 2015
Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008 Phase

- in starting 2010

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2007 Engines: 2009 Fuel: 2007

- 2010

Engines: Phase

- in starting 2010

Port Truck Modernization 2007

- 2008 2008

- 2020

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007

- 2008 Starting in 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 2009

- 2018

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007 Phase

- in starting 2008

Clea n er In

- Use Agricultural Equipment 2009 Phase

- in starting 2014

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats 2009

- 2010 2012

- 2013

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards By 2010 2012

- 2015

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage Tanks 2007 Phase

- in starting 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 2010

- 2012

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2007

- 2008
2010

- 2012 By 2010

By 2012

- 2014 Department of Pesticides Pesticide Regulation 200 8 2008

Source: CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 76 Table D

- 2 

### Updated 2007 State Strategy : PM 2.5 

### SIP Measures South Coast and San Joaquin Valley

Defined State Measure Action

Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 200 9

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007

Cleaner In

- U se Heavy Duty Trucks 200 7, 2008, 2010

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 200 8

- 2011 Engines: 200 8

Port Truck Modernization 200 7, 2008, 2010

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 200 8

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 , 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007

, 2010

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

Department of Pesticides Pesticide Regulation 2008 , 2009

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Table 1TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 77 3. Proposed Action s on the RACM/RACT Demonstration

In November 2010, EPA proposed to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP based on our proposed disapproval of the attainment demonstration and proposed denial of California‘s attainment date extension request. We also proposed to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstra tion because it did not evaluate potential controls on VOC. See 2010 Proposal TSD, section II.D. and 75 FR 74518

, 74528. In our July 2011 proposed actions on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, we proposed to approve RACM/RACT demonstration based on our proposal to grant California‘s request to extent the attainment date for the SJV until April 5, 2014 and to approve the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 plan as providing for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley by that date. The proposal to approve the RACM/RACT demonstration was also based on our propose d concur rence that VOC should be considered a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. See 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.D. and 76 FR 41338, 41347.

4

. Evaluation and Conclusion s

Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, R AC M /RAC T are the set of measures necessary for expeditious attainment

. The measures must address emissions of direct PM 2.5 25 and all PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors that are necessary for expeditious attainment

. Thus, in order for a PM 2.5 plan to demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate that it provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586

, 20 612

- 20623.

As discussed in Section s II. E and G . of this TSD, we are grant ing California‘s request to extent the attainment date for the SJV until April 5, 2014 and approv ing the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 plan as providing for expeditious a ttainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley by that date.
As discussed in Section II.C. of this TSD, EPA is concur ring with the evaluations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and supplemental information provided by CARB, at this time, ammonia and VOC do not need to be considered attainment plan precursors for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.
Therefore, EPA f

ind s that the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, together w ith the 2007 State Strategy, provide s for the implementation of all RACM/RACT necessary for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51. 1010 and approve s the SJV PM 2.5 SIP‘s RACM/RACT demonstration pursuant to these sections. We received a number of public comments disagreeing with our finding that the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP provided for the implementation of RACM/RACT and suggesting a number of additional measures that sho uld be considered RACM/RACT. We have considered these comments and measures and determined that none adversely affect our finding that the SIP

25 C ondensable PM 2.5 , which is considered direct PM 2.5 , did not need to be addressed in rules prior to January 1, 2011. 40 CFR § 51.100 2(c)

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 78 provides for RACM/RACT. We summarize these comments and provide full responses to them in section III.E. of this TSD.

Petitions for consideration on provisions of the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule related to RACT:

As discussed in section I.A.2.b., EPA received a petition for reconsideration of several provisions in the PM 2.5 implementation rule including three provision s related to RACT

. We describe each below and whether the provisions af fect our action on the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP :
1

. The presumption that c ompliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR ) satisfies the NO x and SO 2 RACT requirements for electric generating units

. 72 FR 20586

, 20623

- 28. The SJV nonattainment area was not subject to the CAIR which was intended to control the interstate transport of pollutants in the eastern United States

. See 70 FR 2 5 162 (May 12, 2005 ).

2

. The allowance for state s to defer establishing emission limits for condensable PM (CPM) until January 1, 2011

. 72 FR 2058

, 2 0652 (codified at 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)). EPA will evaluate any rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM.

3

. The revisions to the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT from a presumption that a given source must bear a cost similar to other sources to a consideration of whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the regulated entity to bear, in light of benefits

. 72 FR 20586

, 20619

- 20620

. While the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan includes some discussion of criteria for economic feasibility that seem to reflect the revised criteria in the PM 2.5 implementation rule ( see pp. 6

- 2 and 6

- 7) , we can find no example of where those criteria actually resulted in the rejection of a potential RACT measure.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 79 

### E. Attainment Date Extension

1. Requirements for Attainment Date Extension s

CA A section 172(a)(2) (A) states that an area‘s atta inment date ―shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date such area was designated nonattainment..., except that the Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.‖ Because the initial PM 2.5 designations , including that for the SJV nonattainment area, have an effective date of April 5, 2005, the initial attainment date for PM 2.5 areas is no later than April 5, 2010

. For any areas that EPA grant s the full 5

- year attainment date extension under section 172 (a) , the attainment date is no later than April 5, 2015

. Section 51.1004 of the PM 2.5 implementation rule addresses the attainment date requirement

. Section 51.1004(b) requires a state to s ubmit an attainment demonstration justifying its proposed attainment date and indicates that EPA will approve an attainment date at the same we approve th e attainment demonstration

. Thus, our approval of an extended attainment date is dependent upon a demonstration showing expeditious attainment.

A s tate that request s an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2) (A) must provide sufficient information to show that attainment by the initial attainment date of April 5, 2010 is impracticable due the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of available control measures

. It must also demonstrate that all local control measures that are reasonably available and techn olog ically feasible for the area are being implemented to bring about expeditious attainment of the standar d by the alternative attainment date for the area

. The
state ‘s plan will need to project the emissions reductions expected due to federal and state regulations and local measures such as RACT and RACM, and then conduct modeling to project the level of air quality improvement in accordance with EPA‘s modeling guidance

. EPA will not grant an extension of the attainment date for an area beyond the initial 5 years allowed by section 172(a)(2)(A) if the state has not considered the implementation of all RACM and RACT local control measures for the area

. 72 FR 20586

, 20601.

2. Proposed Attainment Date in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

The expeditious attainment demonstration that supports the District‘s proposed attainment date is found in Chapter 9 of the P lan and summarized in Table E

- 1 below. This demonstration has been revised by the updated RFP demonstration in Appendix C of the 2011 Progress Report. See Table E

- 2 below. Based on this analysis for the annual standard , the District and CARB requested an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 for both the annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards

. See SJV U APCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 4 and CARB Resolution 08

- 28, p. 4

. In its 2011 Progress Report, CARB continues to project April 5, 2015 as the most e xpeditious attainment date in the SJV. See 2011 Progress Report , p. 1

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 80 Table E

- 1 

### Expeditious Attainment Demonstration for the Annual PM 2.5 

### Standard

in the San Joaquin Valley (tons per annual average day)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Baseline NO x inventory 500.9 469.5 443.3 424.4 393.1 376.2

District commitment

- 2.43

- 3.24

- 4.26

- 8.56

- 8.82

- 8.97

C ARB commitment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

- 76.0 Controlled inventory 498.5 466.3 439.0 415.8 384.3 291.2

NO x emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2

At attainment level? no no no no no yes
Baseline direct ed

- emitted PM 2.5 inventory 79.8 79.0 77.9 77.0 75.9 75.0

District commitment

- 1.60

- 2.96

- 4 .46

- 6.69

- 6.70

- 6.70

CARB commitment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

- 5.0 Controlled inventory 78.2 76.0 73.4 70.3 69.2 63.3

Direct PM 2.5 emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3

At attainment level? no no no no no yes
Baseline SO 2 inventory 26.4 23.0 23.3 23.6 23.8 25.5

District commitment

- 0.06

- 0.11

- 0.16

- 0.92

- 0.92

- 0.92

CARB commitment N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Controlled inventory 26.3 22.9 23.1 22.7 22.9 24.6

SO 2 emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6

At attainment level? no yes yes yes yes yes
Overall annual PM 2.5 standard attainment? no no no no no yes
Projected attainment year/ attainment date 2014/April 5, 2015

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 9

- 1. N/A: not applicable. CARB provide d commitments to NO x and PM 2.5 reductions in 2014 only

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 81 Table E

- 2 

### Revised Exped itious Attainment Demonstration for the Annual PM 2.5 

### Standard in the San Joaquin Valley (tons per annual average day)

Year 2009 2012 2013 2014

Baseline NO x inventory 500.9 424.4 393.1 376.2
District commitments /actual achieved 1 2.4 11.8 12.4 9 .0

Adjustments to baseline 2 117.5 8 4

. 6 7 3.9 5 76 CARB commitment 3 N/A N/A N/A
Controlled inventory 4 381 328 306 .8 291
NO x emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2

At attainment level? no no no yes
Baseline direct PM 2.5 inventory 79.8 77.0 75.9 75.0
District commitments 1 1.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 Adjustments to baseline 2 5.2 1.3 2. 0 5.0 CARB commitment 3 N/A N/A N/ A Controlled inventory 4 73 69 6 7.2 63.3
Direct PM 2.5 emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3

At attainment level? no no no yes
Baseline SO 2 inventory 26.4 23.6 23.8 25.5
District commitments /actual reductions 1 0.1 3.5 3.6 3.6

Adjustments to baseline 2 3.3 0.1 0.3 0.5
CARB commitment 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Controlled inventory 4 23.0 20 19.9 21.4
At attainment level? no yes yes yes Overall annual PM 2.5 standard attainment? no no no yes
Projected attainment year/attainment date 2014/April 5, 2015

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 9

- 1 and 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, Table C

- 1. N/A: not applicable. 1

. Actual reductions from District rules (without regard to creditability) are used for 2009, 2012, and 2013 if they are higher than the commitment . The 2014 c ommitment level i s used here instead of actual emissionsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 82 reductions achieved because any excess reductions from the District‘s measures count towards meeting CARB‘s commitment and do not increase the overall emissions reductions. See note 3 below.
2

. Calculated as baseline inventory minus controlled inventory and District commitment . No adjustments are made to the baseline to eliminate uncreditable reductions from Rule 9510.
3

. 2007 State Strategy, p. 62

. According to the 2 007 State Strategy, actual emissions decreases that occur in the San Joaquin Valley that are greater than those from adopted measures may be counted toward meeting CARB‘s commitments (CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachm ent B, p

. 3); therefore, adjustments to the baseline are counted towards meeting the State‘s commitment. 2014 figures are CARB‘s commitment as given on p. 21 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report

. 4

. 2012 and 2014 numbers are from the 2011 Pro gress Report, Appendix C, Table C

- 1 . 2013 PM 2.5 a nd NO x numbers are estimated fro m information in the 2011 Progress Report and additional information provided by the District, see SJV U APCD, Tables 3

- 1 ―Adjusted PM 2.5 Inventory‖ and Table 3

- 2 Adjusted NO x Invento ry,‖ no date.
5

. Calculated by averaging 2014 adjustments to baseline (63.1 tpd for NO x and 2.7 tpd for PM 2. 5 , see Table F

- 7) and averaging this result with the adjustment to baseline for 2012. A similar calculation is done for PM 2.5 , and SO x .

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not specifically address the most expeditious date for the attaining the 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard

. In reference to attainment of the 24

- hour standard, the Plan
states:
Attainment of the 24

- hour 65 microgram standard is projected to occur prior to 2014 and with fewer reductions required than are needed to attain the annual standard

. This means that the annual standard identifies the amount of reductions needed to achieve attainment

. C ARB used the regional model to evaluate the top 25% of days modeled to provide the annual analysis

. Based on design values for 2005, C ARB projected a 2014 value of 45 micrograms or less at all sites

. Due to concerns that the last two years have experienced slightly higher 24

- hour values, the District also performed a screening assessment with estimated design values for 2007 (based on incomplete and uncertified data)

. Evaluation by the District projected a 2014 value of 53 micrograms

. Both of these projections are well below the 65 microgram standard and do not requ ire a weight of evidence evaluation.

2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 3

- 32.

3. Proposed Action s on the Attainment Date Extension

In 2010, we proposed to not grant the State‘s request to extent the attainment date for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV to April 5, 201 5 . This proposal was based primarily on our proposed disapproval of the RACM/RACT demonstration. See 75 FR 74518

, 74534 and 2010 Proposal TSD, section II.E. As stated in preamble to the PM 2.5 implementation rule ( 72 FR 20586

, 20601), EPA cannot grant an extension of the attainment date beyond the initial five years provided by section 1 72(a)(2)(A) if the state has not adequately considered and evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT in the area

. We had proposed to disapp rove the RACM/RACT demonstration because of the issues with the air quality modeling and absence of analysis of VOC controls. We noted, however, that g iven the severity of the PM 2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV, an extension of the attainment date woul d most likely be appropriate and approvable if it were supported by the necessary analysis and part of an attainment plan that meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 83 In 2011, we proposed to grant California‘s request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 for the San Joaquin Valley pursuant to CAA section 172(b)(2)

. This proposal was based on the severity of the PM 2.5 air quality in the SJV and our determination that SIP provided for the adoption and expeditious implementatio n of all reasonably available measures to reduce direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors and for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards as practicable

. See 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.E. and 76 FR 41338, 41354.

4

. Evaluation and Conclusion s

SJV‘s degree of PM 2.5 nonattainment can fairly be characterized as severe

. The area typically records the highest ambient PM 2.5 levels in th e nation, with 200 8

- 20 10 design value for the annual PM 2.5 levels in urban Bakersfield area of 2 1

. 2 μg/m 3

. See EPA, Air Qu ality Subs ystem, Design Value Report, June 1 , 2011

. The PM 2.5 problem in the San Joaquin Valley is complex, caused by both direct and secondary PM 2.5 and co mpounded by the area‘s topographical and meteorological conditions that are particularly conducive to the formation and concentration of PM 2.5
. See 2008 PM 2.5 P lan, Chapter 3.

As discussed in section II.F. below , the District's and State‘s strategy for attaining the PM 2.5 standard in the SJV relies on significant reductions of direct PM 2.5 as well as the PM 2.5 precursor pollutant s NO x and to a lesser degree SO x . T he State and District have already adopted and are currently implementing a comprehensive set of PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x control measures

. We have f

ound that these rules and programs provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT as required by CAA section 172(c)(1). See section II. D. above.

R eductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions are achieved primarily from control measures on open burning, commercial charbroi ling, residential wood combustion

, and in

- use truck s and bus es

. These types of control measures present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large number of individuals subject to regulation and the difficulty of applying conventional technological control solutions). Reductions in NO x emissions come largely from District rules for fuel combustion sources and from the State‘s mobile source rules. Reductions in SO x emissions come primarily from controls on combustion sources and glass melting furnaces

. Because of the necessity of obtaining additional emissions reductions from the more challenging

- to

- control source categories and the need to conduct significant public outreac h if applicable control approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and CARB that the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan reflects expeditious implementation of the se controls during the 2008

- 2014 time frame

. We also agree that the implementation schedule for the District‘s enhanced stationary source controls is expeditious, taking into account the time necessary for purchase and installation of the required control technologies

. Finally, we find that it is not feasible at this time to accelerate the emission s reduction schedule for the State and Federal mobile source control
program which must rely on fleet turnover over the years to ultimately deliver the anticipated emission s reductions beyond what is already anticipated from the State‘s in

- use mobile source control and incentive programs. Given the severity of the PM 2.5 air quality in the SJV and adoption and expeditious implementation of all reasonably available measures to reduce dire ct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors , we find that the SJV PM 2.5 SIP provides for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards as expeditiously as practicable

. EPA, therefore

, grants California‘s request for an attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 for the San Joa quin Valley pursuant to CAA section 172(b)(2)

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 84 We received a number of public comments on our proposal to grant an extension of the attainment date for the 1 9 97 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. We have considered these comments and determined that none adversely affect our granting of the extension. We summarize these comments and provide full responses to them in section III.F. of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 85 

### F

. Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments

CAA section 172(c) (6) requires nonattainment plans to ― include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission righ ts), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such [NAAQS] in such area by the applicable attainment dat e....‖ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which applies to all SIP s , contains virtual id entical language

. The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires all control measures needed for attainment be implemented as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date

. 40 CFR § 51.1007(b).

In most instances

, a nonattainment plan should include the adopted measures it re lies on to demonstrate attainment and RFP and/ or meet any other CAA requirement or should identify the adopted measures it relies on that are already SIP approved, federally promulgat ed, or otherwise SIP creditable

. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of the se adopted measures

. We believe that the CAA allows approval of such enforceable commit ments as elements of a CAA control strategy requirement when they are limited in scope. The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6), given above, is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ―means or techniques‖ that EPA determines are ―necessary or appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the applicable 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 state s that failed to comply with them

. 26 Addit ionally , if a state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179(a) (4) , which starts an 18

- month period for the state to correct the non

- implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.

Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant use of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily

- required program; (b) is the
state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. 27

26 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. 97 6 (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).

27 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and t he Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approvingTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 86 2

. Control Strategy in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy

For the purposes of evaluating the S JV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy, we have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet the RACM/RACT and contingency measures requiremen ts into two categories: baseline measures and control strategy measures

. As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, S tate, and D istrict rules and regulations adopted prior to December 2006 (i.e., prior to the development of 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions t hrough to the attainment year of 2014 and beyond

. 28 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1 and 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. B

- 1

. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantifie d

. These measures provide the majority of emissions reductions needed to attain the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV

. See Table G

- 1 in this TSD

. Control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, commitments , and other adjustments to the inventory that provide the additional increment of emission s reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment , meet RACM/RACT, and/ or provide for contingency measures. We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section

. Baselin e measures are listed in the Appendices A and B to this TSD.

a

. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and implementing 13 new control measures for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and/or SO x . In Table F

- 1 below, we list these measures, which mostly involve strengthening existing District rules, along with their anticipated and actual adoption, final compliance, and initial implementation dates

. As can be seen from Table F

- 1, the District has mostly met its rulemaking schedule and has only two rule action s remaining.

I n Table F

- 2 below , we list the expected emissions reductions from each measure as given in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan ; however, we note that the District‘s commitment is only to the aggregate emissions reductions shown

. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 6

- 9 and SJV U APCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 5

. The reduction s listed i n Table F

- 2 are those anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the time the 2008 PM 2.5 P lan was adopted

. I n Table F

- 3

, we give the current SIP submittal and approval status of the measures in the Plan

. In Table F

- 4, we show the emissions reductions, as updated in the SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report , for the measures that have been approved or proposed for approval by EPA

. For a number of potential measures identified during the District‘s RACM analysis

, insignificant information was available to evaluate the feasibility of implementing them in the San Joaquin Valley

. For these measures, the District developed a schedule for performing feasibili ty studies

. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, page 6

- 13 and Table 6

- 4

. Measures that are identified as

enforceable commitments in the Houston

- Galveston ozone SIP

. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al.

, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).

28 These measures are typically rules that have compliance dates that occur after the adoption date of a plan and mobile source measures that generate reductions through fleet turnover

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 87 being feasible through these studies will be included in future plan updates with schedules and emission s reduction commitments

. A list of these studies

, their anticipated completion date s , and their current status is given in Table F

- 6

. Additional information on these feasibility studies can be found in the SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report, Appendix C.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 88 Tab le F

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number Rule Making

Completion Date Actual

Adoption Date Compliance

Date Actual

Compliance Date Year

Reductions Start Actual Year

Reductions Start

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning (Phase IV) 4103 2 nd Q

– 2010 April 2010 2010 June 2010 2009 2010

S

- COM

- 1 Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 4320 3 rd Q

– 2008 October 2008 2012 July 2012 to January 2014 2012 July 2011

S

- COM

- 2 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3 rd Q

– 2008 October 2008 2012 July 2010 to January 2016 2012 July 2010

S

- COM

- 3 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MM Btu/hr) 4308 4 th Q

– 2009 December 2009 2011 January 2011 2011 January 2011

S

- COM

- 5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 3 rd Q

– 2007 September 2007 2012 January 2012 2012 July 2009

S

- COM

- 6 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 4702 4 th Q

– 2010 August 2011 2012 January 2014

- 2017 2012 January 2014

S

- COM

- 7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3 rd Q

– 2008 October 2008 ; Revised September 2010 2009 PM 10 & SO x – January 2011
NO x limits

– January 2014

- 2018 2009 PM 10 & SO x – June 2009
NO x limits

– January 2011

S

- COM

- 9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1 st Q

– 2009 March 2009 Attrition Attrition 2011 January 2010

S

- COM

- 10 Natural Gas

- Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces 4905 4 th Q

– 201 4 N/A Attrition TBD 201 5 TBD

S

- COM

- 14 1 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 4901 3 rd Q

– 2009 October 2008 2010 2010 2010 2010

S

- IND

- 9 Commercial Charbroiling 4692 2 nd Q

- 2009 September 2009 2011 January 2011 2011 January 2011TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 89 Tab le F

- 1 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number Rule Making

Completion Date Actual

Adoption Date Compliance

Date Actual

Compliance Date Year

Reductions Start Actual Year

Reductions Start

S

- IND

- 21 Flares 4311 2 nd Q

– 2009 June 2009 2010 July 2011 2010 July 2011

M

- TRAN

- 1 Employer Based Trip Reduction Program 9410 4 th Q

– 2009 December 2009 2012 January 2012 2012 January 2012

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6

- 2 , revised June 17, 2010

. Anticipated adoption date for Rule 4702, SJVAPCD, District Highlights, June 16, 2011 Actions by the District Governing Board.
1 Listed as S

- COM

- 11 in Table 6

- 2 but as S

- COM

- 14 else where in the Plan.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 90 Table F

- 2 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan Specific Rule Commitments Plan Assumptions (tons per average annual day)

NO x Emissions Reductions

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

S

- AGR

- 1 4103

- Open Burning (Phase III & I V) 1.21 1.95 2.68 2.67 2.66 2.65

S

- COM

- 1 Rule 4320

- Advanced Emissions Reductions

for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 0 0 0 1.49 1.50 1.52

S

- COM

- 3 4308

- Boilers, Steam Generators and Process

Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr) 0 0 0.12 0.27 0.39 0.55

S

- COM

- 5 4703

- Stationary Gas Turbines 0 0 0 2.21 2.21 2.21

S

- COM

- 7 4354

- Glass Melting Furnaces 1.22 1.25 1.18 1.60 1.67 1.58

S

- COM

- 9 4902

- Residential Water Heaters 0 0 0.20 0.25 0.32 0.40

S

- COM

- 1 4 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood

Burning Heaters 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06

Commitment to Total NO x Reductions 2.43 3.24 4.26 8.56 8.82 8.97

Direct PM 2.5 Emissions Reductions

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

S

- AGR

- 1 4103

- Open Burning (Phase III & IV) 1.60 2.57 3.53 3.52 3.50 3.49

S

- COM

- 1 Rule 4320

- Advanced Emissions Reductions

for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 0 0 0 0.23 0.24 0.24

S

- COM

- 1 4 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood

Burning Heaters 0 0.39 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.69

S

- IND

- 9 4692

- Commercial Charbroiling 0 0 2.17 2.21 2.25 2.28

Commitment to Total PM 2.5 Reductions 1.60 2.96 4.46 1 6.69 6.70 6.70TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 91 Table F

- 2 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan Specific Rule Commitments Plan Assumptions (tons per average annual day)

SO x Emissions Reductions

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

S

- AGR

- 1 4103

– Open Burning (Phase III & IV) 0.06 2 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

S

- COM

- 1 Rule 4320

- Advanced Emissions Reductions

for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr 0 0 0 0.76 0.76 0.76

S

- COM

- 1 4 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood

Burning Heaters 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

M

- TRAN

- 1 9410

– Employer Based Trip Reduction

Programs TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Commitment to Total SO 2 Reductions 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.92

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6

- 3
1 The value 4.46 is given on Table 6

- 3b in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. PM 2.5 reduction s expected in 201 1 , however, sum to 6.46 tpd.
2 Value given as 0.03 tpd in Appendix I, page I

- 4.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 92 Table F

- 3 

### Approval and Submittal Status of SJVAPCD Rules in the 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan

Rule Submittal and/or

Approval Status Dates and Citations

Rule 4103

- Open Burning (Phase IV) Approved Final approval signed September 30 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 4320

- Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011)

Rule 4703

- Stationary Gas Turbines Approved 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009)

Rule 4702

- Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (2010 revisions) Adopted August 2011 Most current revision of rule approved:

January 18, 2007 at 73 FR 1819 ( January 10, 2008)

Rule 4354

- Glass Melting Furnaces Approved 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011)

Rule 4902

- Residential Water Heaters Approved 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010)

Rule 4905

- Natural Gas

- Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces (2014 revisions) Adoption scheduled for 2014 Most current revision of rule approved:

October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29886 ( May 30, 2007)

Rule 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters Approved 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009)

Rule 4692

- Commercial Charbroiling A pprov ed Final approval signed September 30 , 2011

Rule 4311

- Flares Proposed for approval Proposal: 76 FR 52623 (August 23, 2011)

Rule 9410

- Employer Based Trip Reduction Program Action pending Proposal: action pending
Submittal date: May 17, 2010
New rule.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 93 Table F

- 4 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Emissions Reductions f

rom Approved Measures (tons per average annual day)

NO x Emissions Reductions

2009 2012 2014

S

- AGR

- 1 4103

- Open Burning 1.21 1.87 1.87

S

- COM

- 1 4306

- Boilers

- Phase 3 & 4320

- Advanced Emissions

Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 1 0 ( 1.58 ) ( 1.60 )

S

- COM

- 2 4307

- Boilers, 2 to 5 MMBtu/hr 0 1.25 1.29

S

- COM

- 3 4308

- Boilers, 0.075 to 2 MMBtu/hr 0 0.69 1.45

S

- COM

- 5 4703

- Stationary Gas Turbines 0 2.20 2.20

S

- COM

- 7 4354

- Glass Melting Furnaces 1.22 3.50 3.64

S

- COM

- 9 4902

- Residential Water Heaters 0 0.30 0. 5 0

S

- COM

- 1 4 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning

Heaters 0 0.12 0. 12

M

- TRAN

- 1 9410

- Employer

- Based Trip Reduction 2 0 ( 0.31 ) ( 0.33 )

Total Creditable NO x Reductions from Approved Measures 2. 43 9.93 11. 1
Direct PM 2.5 Emissions Reductions

2009 2012 2014

S

- AGR

- 1 4103

- Open Burning 1.60 2.91 2.91

S

- COM

- 1 4306

- Boilers

- Phase 3 & 4320

- Advanced Emissions

Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 0 0. 24 0.24

S

- COM

- 1 4 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning

Heaters 0 1.15 1.08

S

- IND

- 9 4692

- Commercial Charbroiling 3 0 0. 0 0. 0TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 4 Table F

- 4 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Emissions Reductions f

rom Approved Measures (tons per average annual day)

M

- TRAN

- 1 9410

- Employer

- Based Trip Reduction 2 0 ( 0.03 ) ( 0.03 )

Total PM 2.5 Reductions from Approved Measures 1.6 4. 30 4. 23
SO x Emissions Reductions

2009 2012 2014

S

- AGR

- 1 4103

- Open Burning 0.05 0.05 0.05

S

- COM

- 1 4306

- Boilers

- Phase 3 & 4320

- Advanced Emissions

Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 0 1.92 1.92

S

- COM

- 7 4354

- Glass Melting Furnaces 0 1.49 1.62

S

- COM

- 1 4 4901

- Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning

Heaters 0.01 0.02 0.02

Total SO 2 Reductions from Approved Measures 0.06 3.48 3.61

Source: SJVUAPCD, ―Table 3

- 1 Adjusted PM 2.5 Emission Inventory; Table 3

- 2 Adjusted NO x Emission Inventory; and Table 3

- 3 Adjusted SO x Emission Inventory,‖ March 2011, available in the docket for this rule

. All reductions are based on the Plan‘s emissions inventory

. 1 NO x reductions from Rule 4320 are not currently SIP creditable. See EPA‘s approval of the rule at 76 FR 16696 (March 25, 2011)
2 Because Rule 9410 has not been proposed for approval, reductions from this rule are not included in the totals reductions lis ted.
3 Erroneous value given in SJVUAPCD tables

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 95 Table F

- 5 

### San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan Feasibility Studies

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number Anticipated Study

Completion Date Status

S

- AGR

- 2 Conservation Management Practices 4550 2010 On

- going through 2011. Study currently focused on refining estimates of direct PM 2.5 from sources covered by this rule.

S

- COM

- 4 Solid Fuel Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 4352 2009 Completed. Study found additional controls are technologically feasible to further reduce NO x . District will evaluate various control options during rule revisions in 2011.

S

- COM

- 6A Small Spark

- Ignited Engines and Agricultural Spark

- Ignited Engines 4702 2008 C ompleted . Rule revisions are currently under development. Adoption expected August 2011.

S

- COM

- 8 Lime Kilns 4313 2011 Completed. Study found that there are no lime kilns currently operating in the SJV.

S

- COM

- 11 Dryers 4309 2011 Continuing through 2011. Several options for rule revisions are being considered.

S

- GOV

- 6 Prescribed Burning 4106 2008 Feasibility study completed. Based on results of the study, District is seeking legislative changes to raise priority of air quality related health concerns in decision making on prescribed burning . District has also developed a comprehensive outreach program and participates in daily coordination calls with agencies involved in prescribed burning

.

S

- IND

- 8 Cotton Gins 4204 2009 On

- going through 2012. Completion delayed pending results from the national cotton gin particulate matter emissions study.

S

- IND

- 4 Fugitive PM 10 Prohibitions Reg. VIII 2009 On

- going through 2011. Study currently focused on refining estimates of direct PM 2.5 from sources covered by this regulation.

M

- OTH

- 8 Indirect Source Review Enhancement 9510 2010 Completed. Study concluded that no rules revisions are needed at this time.

M

- OTH

- 10 Fireworks

– 2012 On

- going through 2012. Study is looking at legal limitations and potential future control options.

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6

- 4 and SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report, Appendix C.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 96 b. CARB Measures and Commitment s The 2007 State Strategy includes a commitment by CARB to propose new defined

measures . 2007 State Strategy, p. 62 and CARB Resolution 7

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8 and 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B

. Table F

- 6 below lists these defined measures and their current adoption and approval status. As can be seen from this table, t he State has already adopted and EPA has approved or proposed to approve, or is in the process of granting waivers under CAA section 209 to most of the se measures. The se new measures build on the State‘s already extensive list of adopted measure; a list of which can be found in the 2007 State Strategy ( p. 38 ) and in Appendix A of this TSD.

In addition t o the State‘s commitment to propose specific measures, the 2007 State Strategy includes an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient in combination with existing measures and the District‘s commitments to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley by the requested attainment date of April 5, 2015. For the SJV, the 2007 State Strategy include d a State commitment to achieve 5 tpd of di rect PM 2.5 and 76 tpd of NO x in the SJV by 2014. See 2007 State Strategy, p

. 63 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 6. The nature of this commitment is described in the State Strategy as follows :

The total emission reductions from the new measures necessary to attain the federal standards are an enforceable State commitment in the SIP. While the proposed State Strategy includes estimates of the emission reductions from each of the individual new measures, it is important to note that the commitment of the State Strategy is to achieve the total emission reductions necessary to attain the federal standards, which would be the aggregate of all existing and proposed new measures combined. Therefore, if a particular measure does not get its expected emiss ion reductions, the State still commits to achieving the total aggregate emission reductions, whether this is realized through additional reductions from the new measures or from alternative control measures or incentive programs. If actual emission decrea ses occur in any air basin for which emission reduction commitments have been made that are greater than the projected emissions reductions from the adopted measures in the State Strategy, the actual emission decreases may be counted toward meeting ARB‘s t otal emission reduction commitments.

CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3. The 2011 Progress Report further discusses this commitment: When ARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy as a SIP revision, the State of California made a legal commitment, required by the Clean Air Act and enforceable in federal court, to reduce emissions to the levels necessary for attainment. ARB specifically identified several ways this emission reduction commitment could be achieved:

New measures as describ ed in the SIP Other alternative measures that ARB had not considered at the time the SIP was adopted Incentive programs that support the replacement or retrofit of aging, h igher polluting pieces of equipment Actual emission decreases 2011 Progress Report, p. 4.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 97 As described in section II.A.3. of this TSD, CARB has adjusted baseline emissions estimates for source categories subject to its recently

- revised in

- use rules. Table F

- 7 shows original and adjusted baseline emissions inventories for the source categories . The adjustments to the inventories show the effect of the resent economic recession and, for some source categories, changes to inventory methodologies . Table F

- 8 lists the emissions reductions (from the adjusted baseline emissions inventories ) that the State now estimates it will achieve from its measures as adopted or revised and which are currently creditable to decrease CARB‘s commitment

.

Table F

- 6 

### 2007 State Strategy Defined Mea s ures Schedule for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures Expected

A ction Year Current Status

Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 200 9 A pproved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010) 29 Expanded Vehicle Retirement (AB 118) 2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010. Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010)

Cleaner In

- U se Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 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 action pending.

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats 2013 A dditional action expected 2013.

Source : 2011 Progress Report, Table B

- 1

. Additional information from www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined measures with PM 2.5 , or NO x reductions in the SJV are shown here.

29 California A ssembly B ill 2289 , passed in 2010, requir es 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 Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 98 Table F

- 7 

### Original and Adjusted Baseline Emissions Inventories

By State Measure (tons per day, 2014)

State Measure Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x Original Adjusted Change Original Adjusted Change Original Adjusted Change
Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2.5 2.5 0.0 41 41.2 +0.2

– – –
Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks & Buses 6.2 4.3

- 1.9 156.9 111.3

- 45.6 0.3 0.2

- 0.1

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

Haul Locomotives 0.5 0.5 0.0 19.9 19.9 0.0

– – –

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 1.4 0.6

- 0.8 31.4 13.7

- 17.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats – – – 3.5 3.5 0.0

– – –

All Other Measures 64 1 64 1 0.0 123.0 123.0 0.0 24 2 24 2 0.0

Totals: 74.6 71.9

- 2.7 375.7 312.6

- 63.1 24.3 24.2

- 0.1

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E, p. 4.
1 Includes emissions from recreational boats.
2 Includes emissions from all sources categories except for those subject to the Truck & Bus and Off

- Road Equipment RulesTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 99 Table F

- 8 

### Creditable Emission s Reductions from Defined Measures

for the San Joaquin Valley ( t ons p er d ay 2014)
State Measure Direct PM 2.5 NO x Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 0.1 0.7
Expanded Vehicle Retirement

– –
Cleaner In

- Use Heav y

- Duty Trucks 1.7 1.1
Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 0. 0 0.0

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 0. 0 0.3

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats – –

Totals: 1.8 2.1

Source: 20 11 Progress Report, Appendix E, p. 4

. Only defined measures with PM 2.5 , or NO x reductions in the SJV are shown here

. Note: The 2007 State Strategy did not include SO x reductions for the SJV.

3. Proposed Action s on the Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

In our 2010 proposed action, we found that circumstances warrant ed the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the SJV PM 2.5 SIP‘s attainment demonstration

. We also found that both the State and the District ha d demonstrated the capability to meet their commitments. We did not find, however, that the commitments constitute d a limited portion of the required emissions reductions needed for attainment

. The State‘s and District‘s unfulfilled commitments at the time of our 2010 proposal represent 41 percent of the PM 2.5 reductions, 28 percent of the NO x reductions, and 44 percent of the SO x emissions reductions e stimated to be needed for attainment

. We al so found that the commitments , which were for the most part to achieve the reductions by 2014, were not for an appropriate timeframe given that we were proposing to not grant the State‘s request to extent the applicable attainment date from 2010 to 2015. 7 5 FR 74518, 74535 and 2010 Proposal TSD, section II.F

. Because we could not make two of the necessary findings, we were unable to propose to approve the attainment demonstration that relied in part on these commitments. We did , however, propos e to approve SJV U APCD's and CARB‘s commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in their plans and to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions identified in their plans b ecause they w ould strengthen the California SIP

. In our 2011 proposed action, we again found that circumstances warrant ed the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the SJV PM 2.5 SIP‘s attainment demonstration

. We also found again that both the State and the District ha d demonstrated the
cap ability to meet their commitments. Based on revisions to the SIP submitted in 2011 and our proposed approval of the Truck Rule, we found that the commitments constitute d a limitedTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 100 portion of the required emissions reductions needed for attainment

. The Stat e‘s and District‘s unfulfilled commitments at the time of our 2011 proposal represent a pproxim ately 13 percent of the direct PM 2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NO x needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJ V

. We also proposed to find that the commitment s were for an appropriate timeframe given that we were proposing to grant the State‘s request to extent the applicable attainment date from 2010 to 2015. 7 6 FR 41338

, 41356 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.F

. Based on these proposed findings, we propose d to approve the attainment demonstration that relied in part on these commitments.

We also again propos e d to approve SJV U APCD's and CARB‘s commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in their plans and to achieve the aggregate emissions reductions identified in their plans . We did propos e to disapprove the District‘s commitment to adopt revis ions to Rule 4702 by December 2010 because that date had passed and the District has not adopted revisions to the rule. We s tated that s hould the District adopt revision to the rule by the time of EPA‘s final action on the Plan, EPA would take no action on the commitment because it will have already been fulfilled

.

4

. Evaluation and Conclusion s

a. Baseline and Control Strategy Measures

As shown in Table F

- 9 , the majority of the emission s reductions needed to demonstrate attainment come from baseline measures . These reductions come from a combination of District and State measures as well as adjustments to the baseline that reflect revisions to the economic for e casts that underlie the Plan‘s estimates of future emissions levels

. 30
In the past two decades, the District has adopted or revised almost 40 prohibitory rules that limit emi ssions of NO x , SO x and/or particulate matter including most of the rule adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. See Appendix B and Table F

3. These rules include controls for boilers, fugitive dust sources, engines, woodburning, and open burning. The great majority of these rules and rule revisions are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other CAA requirements, such as contingency measures

. The 2005 baseline inventory includes uncreditable reductions from the District‘s Rule 9510

- Indirect Source Review (4.2 tpd NO x ) . 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B , Table B

- 2

. While EPA has approved the rule into the California SIP, it is not currently allowing emissions reductions credits from the rule to be relied on for SIP planning purposes. 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). In our evaluation of the RFP and attainment demonstration s, we have exclude reductions from this rule.

30 Reductions in the baseline also come from f ederal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s national emission s 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 R F P demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 101 Table F

- 9 

### Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV‘s PM 2.5 

### Attainment Demonstration (tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2

A 2005 baseline emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 a ttainment target level 63.3 291.2 24.6

C Total reductions needed from 2005 baseline levels to attain in 2014 (A

– B) 22.7 284.2 1.8

D Unadjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 75.0 376.2 25.5

E Adjustment to 2014 baseline emissions level 2.7 63.1 0.1

F Uncreditable reductions from Rule 9510 in the 2014 baseline – 4.2

–

G Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level (D

– E +F ) 72.3 317

. 3 25.4

H Reductions from baseline measures (A

- G ) 13.7 258.1 1.0

I Percent of reductions needed for attainment from baseline measures 60.4% 90

. 8 % 56%

J Reductions needed from control strategy measures ( C

- H ) 9.0 26.1 0.8

K Percent of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 39.6% 9.2 % 44%

California has adopted standards for many categories of on

- and off

- road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of consumer products. The State‘s measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to obtain a waiver of federal pre

- emption under CAA section 209 (―section 209 waiver measure‖ or ―waiver measure‖) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (―non

- waiver

measur e‖). 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). 31

i

. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for mos t of California‘s on

- and

non

- road vehicle or engine standards

. Examples of State waiver measures are: low emission

31 EPA position is also discussed in Brief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Bett er Arvin, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al

., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33

- 44.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 102 vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off

- road engine standard s

. A list of California‘s waiver measures can be found in the A ppendix A of this TSD

. California‘s motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which amended the CAA of 1963)

. In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90

- 148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of the Air Quality Act‘s pre

- emption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines because of California‘s pioneering efforts and unique problems

. This was not changed when the statute was amended in 1970

. The 1977 amendments to the CAA expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California th e broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)

. So long as California determines that its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards relat ing to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines

. See CAA section 209 , subsections (a) and (b). As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical language to s ubsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for non

- road vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions ) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA ‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically allowed emission s reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are s ubject to a section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP

. In this respect

, EPA treated these rules similarly to the federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision

. Since 1990, EPA has treated California non

- road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i. e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP . In so doing, EPA has treated the California non

- road standards similarly to the Federal non

- road standards, which are relied up on, but not included in, various SIPs. Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- road and non

- road standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the follow ing content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropria te to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never foun d such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based onTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 103 considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to incl ude in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)

. See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal non

- road vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California non

- road waiver measure s

. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB ca n relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193

. Meanwhile, the growing convergence betwe en California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State
program

. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program. Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or non

- road standards for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA
program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile source enfor cement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are

n ot in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification, As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- es tablished emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehi cle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOBILE.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for vehicle deterioration and many other factors

. The moto r vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan ( see 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPATSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 104 in California SIP actions. 32 T he San Joaquin Valley plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC mode l referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFA C are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOBILE model.
Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval
process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request

. When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as SIP revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California re quests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions

— may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. Further statutory support for EPA‘s long

- standing practice is found i n CAA section 193. CAA section 193, enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretations that predate those amendments to remain in effect so long as not inconsi stent with the Act

. At the time it enacted section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent prior treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act . Moreover, where Congress intends sta te control measures that are otherwise pre

- empted under title II of the Clean Air Act to be incorporated into SIPs, it has required that explicitly. See

, e.g ., section 211(c)(4)(C) (State fuels regulations), section 211(m) (oxygenated gasoline regulations)

, and

32 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our pr oposed 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 limitat ions, 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 * * *,‖ includ ing the types of vehicle emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the CA C, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its intention to rely on the Cal ifornia 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 (Septe mber 26, 1980)

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 105 section 246 (centrally fueled fleets). Thus, in section 193, Congress effectively ratified EPA‘s longstanding pre

- 1990 practice of allowing emission s reduction credit for California standards subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself

. As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for non

- road vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles. Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision of the statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpretation with respect to motor vehicle standards is further compelling evidence that the Agency corre ctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP.

We believe that secti on 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

- standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatm ent of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act

. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of non

- road vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broa dest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare

. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California w ith the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and non

road vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent

. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. Even if section 193 did not provide congressional acquiescence as to EPA‘s treatment of the sta ndards, the Act‘s structure, evolution, and provision for the waiver of Federal pre

- emption for California mobile source emissions standards , as discussed above, support EPA‘s long

- standing interpretation of the CAA to allow California to rely on emissions reduction s resulting from waiver measures in SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.

ii

. Non

- waiver measures These measures include improvements to California‘s inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, SmogCheck

, and cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations

. A list of these non

waiver measures

, many of which have been SIP approved, can be found Appendix A

.
b

. Enforceable Commitments

As shown in Table F

- 1 0 below

, reductions in the projected baseline inventory re sulting from the economic recession

, changes to activity estimates and other revisions to the emissions inventory

, and measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to and pursuant to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan) and approved or proposed for approval by EPA provide more than 90 percent of the emission s reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV

. The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of enforceableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 106 commitments by the Distric t and CARB

. Tables F

- 11 and F

- 12 show the District and CARB‘s commitments.
We believe that, with respect to the 2008 SJV PM 2.5 SIP , circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the SJV

. As s hown in Table F

- 9 above, the majority of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP in the SJV come from rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., they come from the baseline measures

. As a result of these State and Di strict efforts, most sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area were already subject to stringent rules prior to State Strategy‘s and the Plan‘s development, leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportunities to reduce emissions

. In the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures that could achieve the additional emission s reductions needed for attainment

. See 2008 PM 2.5 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 April 5, 2008 33 deadline to submit the PM 2.5 attainment plan

. As discussed above, the District and State have made progress meeting their commitments but have not completely fulfilled them

. Given these circumstances, we consider the District‘s and CARB‘s reliance in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy on enforceable commitments to be warranted

. Having concluded that the use of enforceable commitme nt is warranted, w e now consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA planning requirements is approvable : (a) does the commitment address a limited portion of the stat utorily

- required program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time

.

33 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 8

- hour Ozone NAAQS. The 8

- hour ozone SIPs were due in November 2007, and the development and adoption of the State Strategy was timed to coordinate with this submitta l date . 2007 State Strategy, p. 1.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 107 Table F

- 10 

### Reductions Needed for Atta inment Remainin g as Commitments

based on SIP

- Creditable Measures (tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8

B Adjustments to the baseline and r eductions from baseline measures and (Table F

- 9) 13.7 258.1 1.0

C Total reductions from approved /proposed for approval measures (Table s F

- 4 and F

- 8 ) 6.0 13. 2 3.6

D Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

- B

- C) 1 3.0 12. 9 0.0

Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments 13.2 % 4. 5 % 0.0%

Table F

- 1 1 

### Emissions Reductions Remaining as District Commitments

based on SIP

- Creditable Measures (tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x

Total District commitments (Table F

- 2) 6.7 9.0 0.9 Total reductions from approved District measures (Table F

- 4) 4.2 11.1 3.6

Total reductions remaining as District commitments 2.5 0 0TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 108 Table F

- 12 

### Emissions Reductions Remaining as CARB Commitments

based on SIP

- Creditable Measures (tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2

A Reductions needed from control strategy

measures ( Table F

- 9, line J ) 9.0 26.1 0.8

B District commitments (Table F

- 2) 6.7 9.0 0.9

C CARB commitments ( A

- B ) 2.3 17.1

--

D Total reductions from approved or proposed for approval State measures 1.8 2.1

--

E Total reductions remaining as CARB commitments (C

- ) 0.5 15.0

--

i. The C ommitment is a Limited Portion of Required Reductions For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a limited portion of a statutory requirement , such as the amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment in a nonattainment area

. As shown in Table F

- 10 , the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments after accounting for approved and proposed for approval measures as well as adjustments to the basel ine that result ed from the recent economic recession

, are 3.0 tpd direct PM 2.5 and 12.9 tpd NO x . When compared to the total reductions needed by 2014 for PM 2.5 attainment in the SJV on a per

- pollutant basis , the se co mmitments represents approxim ately 13 pe rcent of the direct PM 2.5 and 4 .5 percent of the NO x needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJ V.

We believe that the reductions remaining as enforceable commitments in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy represent a limited portion of the total emissions reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement for attainment in the SJV and therefore satisfy the first factor. The level of reductions remaining as commitments is reasonable close to the 10 percent range that EPA has h is torically accepted in approving attainment demonstration s

. 34

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 commitment s

. As discussed above, CARB has adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status Report and a 2011 Progress Report which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy

. Th ese

34 See , for example, 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), and the Houston

- Galveston 1

- hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001 ).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 109 report s show that CARB has made significant progress in meeting its enforceable commitments for the San Joaquin Valley and several other nonattainment areas in California

. Additional on

going program that address locomotives and in

- use agricultural equipment have yet to be quantified but are expected to reduce NO x and direct PM 2.5 emissions in the SJV by 2014. 35

The District has already exceeded its commitments for reducing NO x and SO x emissions and has substantially met its commitment to reduce direct PM 2.5 emissions. See T able F

- 1 11

. It also has already adopted rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) that are projected to achie ve NO x reductions of 5.8 tpd in 2014. These reductions , however, are not currently creditable to the attainment and RFP demonstrations. See Table s F

- 4 and F

- 9. I t is also continuing to work to identify and adopt additional measures to reduce emissions. Table F

- 5 in this TSD describes a number of the feasibility studies currently underway at the District.

B eyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have well

- funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on

- and off

- road eng ine fleets . Reductions 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 Finally, the SJV is designated nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard. The State must submit a plan to address attainment of that standard is by December 2012. 74 FR 58688, 58689 (November 13, 2009)

. Given the evidence of the State's and District‘s efforts to date and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions , we believe that the State and District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to reduce emissions of direct PM 2.5 and NO x by 2014 to the levels needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley by 2014.

iii. The Commitmen t is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timefram e
F or 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 reduc e emissions to the levels needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley , the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy include d an ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedule s, which both the District and CARB have substantially met

. EPA considers th ese schedul e s to provide sufficient time to achieve by 2014 the few remaining reductions need ed to attain by the attainment date of April 5, 2015

. See Tables F

- 3 and F

- 6 above

. We, therefore, conclude that the third factor is satisfied.

iv. Summary of Finding on Enf orceable Commitments in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP

EPA believe s circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008 SJV PM 2.5 SIP

. As stated a bove , measures already adopted by the District and State and approved or proposed for approval pursuant to CAA section 110(k) or waived pursuant to CAA section 209 by EPA provide the great majority

35 See , for example, SJVAPCD; U.S. EPA; USDA, NRCS; and CARB; Statement of Principles Regarding the Appro a ch to State Implementation Plan Creditability of Agricultural Equipment Replacement Incentive Programs Implemented by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District,‖ December 2010

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 110 of emission s reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by 2015. We h ave found that the reductions that remain as enforceable commitments represent a limited portion of the overall reductions needed for attainment . We have also found that the State and District are capable of fulfilling their remaining commitment s and that the commitment s are for a time period that is both reasonable and appropriate to assure that the remaining reductions are in place prior to the attainment date of April 5, 2015. As a result of our findings here, EPA is accept ing enforceable commitments as part California‘s strategy to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV.

v. Action on Enforc e able Commitments to Reduce Emissions and Adopt Specific Mea s ures
W e are approving the SJVUAPCD's commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in Table 6

- 2 (as amended June 15, 2010) in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled and to achieve specific aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM 2.5 , NO x and SO x by spec ific years as given in Table 6

- 3 of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. We are also approv ing CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given in Table B

- 1 in 2011 Progress Report and to achieve the to tal emissions reductions necessary to attain Federal s tandards through the implementation of control measures; the expenditure of local, State, or federal incentive funds; or through other enforceable measures.‖ See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B at pp. 3

- 6. We note that the updates and improvements to t he projected baseline inventories as presented in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report altered the calculation of the reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in SJV by reducing the total reductions needed from control strategy measures to 9 tpd (for PM 2.5 ), 26.1 tpd (for NO x ), and 0.8 tpd (for SO 2 ). See Table F

- 9 above

. We therefore inter pret CARB‘s emissions reduction commitment

, together with the adjustments to the 20 14 baseline inventories provided in CARB‘s 2011 SIP revision and the District‘s commitments, as adjusting CARB‘s total emission reduction commitment such that the CARB is now obligated to achieve 2.3 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions and 17.1 tpd of NO x red uctions by 2014 through enforceable control measures to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in SJV. See Table F

- 12 above. We also note that we do not agree with CARB‘s position that ―actual decreases occurring in any air basin for which emissio n reduction commitments have been made‖ or incentive programs may be counted as SIP credit toward CARB‘s enforceable commitment, unless the State provides a demonstration that such emission decreases are enforceable or otherwise meet EPA‘s criteria for SIP creditability

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 111 

### G

. Attainment Demonstration s

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section s 172( b ) and (c) require state s to submit plans that demonstrate attainment of the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable attainment date. Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, this demonstration should consists of four parts : (1) t echnical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are contributing to violations of the PM 2.5 NAAQS; (2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting from already

- adopted nati onal and local programs, and from potential new local measures to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; (3) adopted emissions reduction measure with schedules for implementation; and (4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

See 72 FR 20586

, 20605. The requirements for parts 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory (II.A.) , air quality modeling (II.B) , and RACM/RACT (II.D) sections of this TSD. Requirements for parts 3 and 4 are described in the control strategy (II.F.) and contingency measures (II.I.) sections of this TSD , respectively. In this section, we evaluate how these parts taken together provide for attainment of th e 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the attainment date required by the CAA.

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

The attainment demonstration in the 20 0 8 PM 2.5 Plan is in Sectio n 9.1 ―Attainment Outlook.‖ It is summarized in Table G

- 1 below. Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, both CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures that they committed to adopt in their plans, and majority have been approved, proposed for approval, or granted a CAA section 209 waiver by EPA. See Tabl es F

- 3 and F

- 6

. In the 2011 Progress Report, CARB and the District have updated the emissions reductions expected from their adopted measures and resulting from changes to inventory and the economic recession

. Table G

- 2 shows the impact of these updates on the attainment demonstration, and Table G

- 3 show the effect of these updates and EPA‘s proposed and final approvals on the level of commitme nts remaining in the attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 112 Table G

- 1 

### Summary of the SJV‘s PM 2.5 

### the Attainment Demonstration

as Submitted June 2008 (tons per average annual day in 2014 )

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2
A 2005 baseline emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 a ttainment target level 63.3 291.2 24.6

C Total reductions needed from 2005 baseline levels to attain in 2014 (A

– B) 22.7 284.2 1.8

D Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 7 2.3 317.3 25.4

Reductions from baseline measures and

a djustments to baseline (A

- D) 13.7 258.1 1.0

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from baseline measures 60.4% 90.8% 56%

Reductions needed from control strategy measures (B

- D) 9.0 26.1 0.8

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 39.6% 9.2% 44%

Source: Table F

- 9.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 113 Table G

- 2 

### Summary of the SJV PM 2.5 

### Attainment Demonstration Updated April 2011

with Additional Adjustments
(tons per ave r age annual day in 2014)

PM 2.5 NO x SO 2
A 2005 base year emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 a ttainment target level 63.3 291.2 24.6

C Total reductions needed from 2005 base year levels to attain in 2014 (A

– B) 22.7 284.2 1.8

D Unadjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 75.0 376.2 25.5

E Adjustment to 2014 baseline emissions level 2.7 63.1 0.1

F Uncreditable reductions from Rule 9510 in the 2014 baseline - 4.2

-

G Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level (D

– E+F) 72.3 317.3 25.4

Reductions from baseline measures (A

- G ) 13.7 258.1 1.0

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from baseline measures 60.4% 90.8% 56%

Reductions needed from control strategy measures ( G

- C) 9.0 26.1 0.8

Percent of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures 39.6% 9.2% 44%TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 114 Table G

- 3 

### Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments

based on SIP

- Creditable Measures (tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x

A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8

B Adjustments to baseline and r eductions from baseline measures (Table F

- 9) 13.7 258.1 1.0

C Total reductions from approved /proposed for approval measures (Table s F

- 4 and F

- 9 ) 6. 0 13. 2 3.6

D Total reductions remaining as commitments (A

- B

- C) 1 3.0 12. 9 0.0

Percent of total reductions needed remaining as commitments 13.2 % 4. 5 % 0%TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 115 3

. Proposed Action s on the Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

In 2010, we propos ed to disapprove the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan based on our proposed disapproval of the air quality modeling and RACM/RACT d emonstration and our proposal to deny the State‘s request to extend the attainment date for the SJV until April 5, 2015. We also proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstrati on because

, at the time of the 2010 proposal, t he State‘s and District‘s unfulfilled commitments represent ed 41 percent of the direct PM 2.5 reductions, 28 percent of the NO x reductions, and 44 percent of the SO 2 emissions reductions required for attainment . The se percentages wer e well above the roughly 10 percent figure generally accept able in order for EPA to approve an attainment demonstration that relies in part on enforceable commitments. See 75 FR 74518, 74536 and Section II.D. of the 2010 Proposal TSD. In 2011, we proposed to approve the attainment demonstration in the Plan based on our proposed determination that the emissions inventory and air quality modeling provided an adequate technical basis for it, our proposed finding that the Plan provided for RACM/RACT, our proposed granting of the attainment date extension, and our proposal to allow the use of enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 41338, 41356 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.G

.

4

. Evaluation and Conclusion s
In order to approve a SIP‘s attainme nt demonstration, EPA must make several findings and approve the State‘ s requested attainment date. First, we must find that the demonstration‘s technical bases

— emissions inventories and air quality modeling

— are adequate. As discussed above in section s II. A. and II. B ., we are find ing that the emissions inventories and the air quality modeling on which the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP ‘s attainment demonstration is based meet applicable EPA regulations and guidance and are an acceptable basis for the demonstration.

Se cond, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the implementation of all RACM and RACT on sources of direct PM 2.5 and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor

. As discussed above in section II. D ., we are approv ing the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV PM 2.5 SI P.
Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are creditable. As discussed in section II.F.

, the 2008 PM 2.5 SI P relies principally on adopted and approved/waived rule s to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by April 5, 2015. The balance of the reductions is currently in the form of enforceable commitments that account f or 1 3.2 percent of the direct PM 2.5 and 4

. 5 percent of the NO x emissions reductions needed from 2005 levels for attainment. See Table G

- 4

. EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when the circumstances warrant it and the commitments meet three criteria. As discussed in above in s ection II.F.4., w e believe that circumstances here warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments and that the three criteria are met: 1) the commitments constitute a limited portion of the required emissions reductions , 2) both the State and the District have demonstrated their ca pability to meet their commitments

, and 3) the commitment are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these conclusions, we are allowing the State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments in its attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 116 Finally, for a PM 2.5 nonatta inment area that cannot attain with in five years of its designation as nonattainment, EPA must grant an extension of the attainment date in order to approve the attainment demonstration for the area

. As discussed above in section II. E.

, we find that a five

- year extension of the attainment date is appropriate given the severity of the nonattainment problem in the SJV and availability and feasibility of control measure . We, therefore, are grant ing the State‘s request to extend the attainment date in th e SJV to April 5, 2015. For the foregoing reasons, we approve the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP

. We received a number of public comments on our proposal to approve the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. We have conside red these comments and determined that none adversely affect our approval. We summarize these comments and provide full responses to them in section III.G. of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 117 

### H

. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

Clean Air Act Section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas shall provide for reasonable further progress (RFP)

. RFP is defined in section 171(1) as ―such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date. ‖

The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires a state to submit a RFP plan a t the same time as its attainment demonstration for any area for which the state requests an extension of the attainment date beyond 2010

. The RFP plan must provide emission s reductions such that emissions in 2009 represent generally linear progress from the baseline year to the attainment
year

. Where a state requests an extension of the attainment deadline to 2014 or 2015, the state must additionally provide emission s reductions such th at emissions in 2012 represent generally linear progress from the baseline year to the attainment year

. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(c)

. 72 FR 20586

, 206 33. The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for meeting the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation of those measures, and the expected reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 and all PM 2.5 attainm ent plan precursors

. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(c).

A s tate i s also required to d emonstrate in its RFP plan that in each applicable milestone year, emissions will be at a level consistent with generally linear progress in reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year

. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(d)

. A s tate may demonstration this by showing that emissions for each milestone year are either 1) roughly equivalent to benchmark emission levels for direct PM 2.5 emission and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precu rsor addressed in the plan or 2) at levels included in an alternative scenario that is projected to result in a generally equivalent improvement in air quality by the milestone year as would be achieved under the first option

. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(g) and 72 FR 20586

, 206 39

. The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels are given in the PM 2.5 implementation rule in 40 CFR § 51.1009(f) : (1) For direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy, th e full implementation reduction is calculated by subtracting the full implementation inventory from the baseline year inventory

. The f ull implementation inventory is the projected RFP emissions invento ry for the year preceding the attainment date, represen ting a level of emissions that demonstrates attainment

. The b aseline year inventory is the emissions inventory for the year used as the base year for the attainment d emonstration ( see 40 CFR § 51.1000 )

. ( 2 ) For direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy, a benchmark emission s reduction is calculated by multiplying the full implementation reduction by the milestone date fraction

. The milestone date fraction is the ratio of the number of years from the baseline year to the milestone inventory year divided by the number of years from the baseline year to the full implementation year.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 118 ( 3 ) The benchmark emission s level in the milestone year is calculated for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 at tainment plan precursor by subtracting the benchmark emission s reduction from the baseline year emission level

. The benchmark RFP plan is defined as a plan that achieves benchmark emission levels for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan pr ecursor addressed in the attainment strategy for the area. In comparing inventories between baseline and future years for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, the inventories must be derived from the same geographic area

. The pl an must include emissions estimates for all types of emitting sources and activities in the geographic area from which the emissions invento ries for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan are derived

. See 40 CFR § 51.1009( f

)(5). The equivalence of an alternative scenario to the corresponding benchmark plan must be determined by comparing the expected air quality changes of the two scenarios at the design value monitor location

. This comparison should use the information developed for the attainment plan to assess the relationship between emissions reductions of the direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy and the ambient air quality improvemen t for the associated ambient species

. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(h)

.

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 8 of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and is updated and revised in Appendix C of 2011 Progress Report

. The demonstration addresses direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO 2 and uses the 2005 annual average day inventory as the base year inventory and 2014 as the attainment year.

Table H

- 1 shows the calculation of the full implementation reductions, the first step in deter mining the RFP benchmarks under the PM 2.5 implementation rule.

Table H

- 2 provides the benchmark calculations from the Plan. The State is requesting an extension of the attainment date until April 5, 201 5 which means 2014 is the attainment year for the purp oses of the RFP benchmark calculation. The 2014 attainment year is 9 years from the 2005 base year making the 2009 milestone date fraction 4/9 and the 2012 milestone date fraction 7/9.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 119 Table H

- 1 

### Full Implementation Reductions (tons per average annual day )

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2
2005 base year inventory 86.0 575.4 26.4

2014 attainment target emissions level (full implementation inventory ) 63.3 291.2 2 4 .6

Full i mplementation r eductions for attainment 22.7 284.2 1 .8

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 8

- 1

Table H

- 2 

### Benchmark Calculations (tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2 A. Full implementation reductions 22.7 284.2 1 .8

B. 2009 milestone date fraction (4/9) 0.44 0.44 0.44

C. 2009 benchmark emissions reductions (A * B) 10.1 126.3 0.8

D. 2009 benchmark emissions level (2005 b aseline inventory

– C) 75.9 449.1 25. 6

E. 2012 milestone date fraction (7/9) 0.78 0.78 0.78

F. 2012 benchmark emissions reductions (A * E) 17.7 221.0 1.3

G. 20 12 benchmark emissions level (2005 basel ine inventory

– F) 68.3 354.4 25.1

H. Annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 9 *A) 2.5 31.6 0.2

I. Percent annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 9 *A/2005 baseline inventory) 2.9% 5.5% 0.8 %

Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 8

- 2TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 120 3. Proposed Action s on the RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

In our 2010 proposal, we proposed to disapprove the RFP demonstration in the SJV PM 2.5 Plan b ased on our proposed disapproval of the air quality modeling analysis and attainment demonstration

. Air quality modeling establishes the emissions levels needed for attainment. These levels are also needed to determine what constitutes generally linear progress
towar ds attainment in an area

. See 75 FR 74518, 7453 7 and 2010 Proposal TSD , Section II.H

. In our 2011 proposal, we proposed to approve the RFP demonstration in the PM 2.5 Plan. We also proposed to find that the SJV had met its 2009 milestone. See 76 FR 41338, 4 1357 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.H.

4

. E valuation and Conclusion s
Because California has requested an attainment date of April 5, 2015 for the SJV, the Plan has addressed RFP for both 2009 and 2012 as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009(c) (2)

. The SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan describes in Chapter 6 (tables 6

- 2 and 6

- 3) the non

- baseline control measures that are relied on to meet the reasonable further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation of th e se measures, and the expected reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 and the PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors , NO x and SO x , as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009(c)

. The District updated this information in supplemental documentation it provided to EPA

. See SJVAPCD, Table 3

- 1 ―Adjusted PM 2.5 Inventory,‖ Table 3

- 21 ―Adjusted NO x Invent ory,‖ and Table 3

- 3 ―Adjusted SO x Inventory,‖ no date.

The RFP demonstration does not address VOC or ammonia controls or emissions reductions. Because EPA has determined that there is insufficient information to overcome the presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule that VOC and ammonia are not PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor s for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV ( see section II.C of this TSD), the Plan does not need to provide an RFP demonstration for either precursor

. 40 CFR § 51.1009(f). In comparing inventories between baseline and future years for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, the inventories are derived from the same geographic

area

. The Pl an include s emissions es timates for all sources and activities in the SJV from which the emissions invento ries for direct PM 2.5 emissions and each PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the P lan are derived as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009( f ). In preparing its RFP demonstration, the State followed the procedures in by 40 CFR § 51.1009(f) and correctly calculated the benchmark emissions levels

. Using data from the 2011 Progress Report , we have evaluated the Plan ‘s past and projected controlled emissions level s against the 2009 and 2012 benchmark emissions levels adjusted to remove currently uncreditable reductions

. See Table H

- 3

. As can be seen from this table

, controlled emissions levels for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x were below the benchmark s for 2009

, demonstrating that the SJV met its RFP targets in that year. For 2012, the projected controlled emissions level for direct PM 2.5 is only slightly above (by less than 5 perce nt ) its benchmark and the p rojected controlled levels for NO x and SO x are substanti ally below the ir benchmarks

. We find that , overall, the se projected controlled emissions levels represent generally linear progress for 2012

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 121 Based on our evaluation summarized above, we f ind that the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP provide s for reasonable further progress as required by CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR § 51.1009 . We also find that the SJV has met its 2009 RFP benchmarks

. We received a few comments on our proposed approval of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP‘s RFP demonstration. We hav e considered these comments and determined that none adversely affect our approval. We summarize these comments and provide full responses to them in section III.G. of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 122 Table H

- 3 

### RFP Demonstration U sing Updated Control Measures and Baseline Data (tons per annual average day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2

2009

Benchmark emissions level 76 449 26 Projected controlled emissions level 73 381 23

C urrently uncreditable reductions from Rules 9410, 9510, and 4320 (Table H

- 4) 0 5.5 0

C orrections to estimated reductions from Rule 4692 (Table H

- 4) 0 0 0

Revised projected controlled emissions level 73 387 23

Emissions below benchmark emissions level

- 3

- 6 2

- 3

Percent above/below benchmark emissions level

- 4%

- 14 %

- 12%

2012

Benchmark emissions level 68 354 25 Projected controlled emissions level 70 3 28 20

C urrently uncreditable reductions from Rules 9410, 9510, and 4320 (Table H

- 4) 0 8.2 0

C orrections to estimated reductions from Rule 4692 (Table H

- 4) 0.9 0 0

Revised projected controlled emissions level 71 336 20

Emissions above/below benchmark emissions level + 3

- 1 8

- 5

Percent below benchmark emissions level + 4 %

- 5 %

- 20%TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 123 Table H

- 4 

### Adjustments to Control Measures Reductions for the RFP Demonstration (tons per annual average day)

2009 2012

NO x Direct

PM 2.5 NO x Direct PM 2.5 Rule 9410

– Employer Based Trip Reduction Program 0 0 0.3 0

Rule 9510

– Indirect Source Review 5.5 0 6.3 0

Rule 4320

– AERO for Boilers 0 0 1.6 0

Rule 4692

– Commercial Charbroiling 0 0 0 0.9

Total Adjustment 5.5 0 8.2 0.9

Estimated Effect of Base Year Inventory Changes on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP’s RFP Demonstrations
As discussed in section II.A. of this TSD, CARB has updated the inventories for several mobile source catego ries including off

- road equipment and heavy duty diesel trucks and estimates that these updates reduce the 2005 base year inventory by approximately 6 percent for NO x and 5 percent for PM 2.5
. CARB Progress Report supplement , Attachment 1

. The State

, however, did not revise the RFP demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan to incorporate these adjustments.

As shown in Tables H

- 5 and H

- 6 below, we have evaluated the effect on the RFP demonstration of making these minor adjustment s to the 2005 base year inventory. As can be seen from these tables, the Plan still provide s for RFP with these adjustments

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 124 Table H

- 5 

### Estimated Effect of Changes to the 2005 Base Year Inventory on the RFP Demonstration

– Milestone Calculation

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2

A. Base year inventory 86 .0 575.4 26.4

B. Adjusted base year inventory assuming 4 .7 % reduction in PM 2.5 and 6.1% reduction in NO x (no change to SO 2 ) 82. 0 5 40.3 26.4

C. Attainment level 63.3 291.2 24.6

D

. Adjusted f

ull implementation reductions (B

- D) 18.7 2 49

. 1 1.8

E

. 2009 milestone date fraction (4/9) 0.44 0.44 0.44

F. Adjusted 2009 benchmark emissions reductions ( D * E ) 8. 2 1 09.6 0.8

G

. Adjusted 2009 benchmark emissions level (B

F) 73.7 43 0.7 25.6

H

. 2012 milestone date fraction (7/9) 0.78 0.78 0.78

I

. Adjusted 2012 benchmark emissions reductions ( D * H ) 1 4.6 194.3 1.3

J

. Adjusted 2012 benchmark emissions level (2005 baseline inventory

– F) 67. 4 34 6.0 25.1

K

. Annual reductions needed for linear progres s ( 1 / 9 * D) 2.1 27.7 0.2

L. Percent annual reductions needed for linear progress ( 1 / 9 * D / 2005 baseline inventory) 2. 5 % 5. 1 % 0.8%TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 125 Table H

- 6 

### Estimated Effect of Changes to the 2005 Base Year Inventory on RFP Demonstration (tons per annual average day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2

2009

Benchmark emissions level 7 3

. 7 43 0

. 7 26 Revised p rojected controlled emissions level (Table H

- 3) 73 38 7 23

Emissions below benchmark emissions level

- 0.7

- 43.7

- 3

Percent below/above benchmark emissions level

- 1. 0 %

- 1 0.1 %

- 12%

2012

Benchmark emissions level 67. 4 3 4 6.0 25 Revised p rojected controlled emissions level (Table H

- 3) 70

. 9 3 3 6 20

Emissions below/above benchmark emissions level 3.5

- 1 0

- 5

Percent below/above benchmark emissions level 5.1 %

- 2.9 %

- 20%

Earthjustice Petition on the PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

In June 200 7 , a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of several provisions in the PM 2.5 implementation rule

. See Earthjustice, ―Petition for Reconsideration in the Matter of the Final Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule,‖ June 25, 200 7

. Among these provisions is

a llowing state s to use emissions reductions f rom outside of the nonattainment area to demonstration RFP (out

- of

- area RFP) as discussed in 72 FR 20586

, 20636

. On May 1 3

, 2010, EPA granted the petition with respect to this issue

. See Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010

. The updated SJV 2008 PM 2.5 plan does not rely on out

- of

- area emissions reductions to demonstrat e RFP.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 126 

### I

. Contingency Measures

1. Requirement s for Contingency Measures

Under CAA section 172( c)(9), all PM 2.5 attainment plans must include contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date (attainment contingency measures)

. See 40 CFR § 51.1012

. The
purpose of contingency measures is to continue progress in reducing emissions while the SIP is being revised to meet the missed RFP milestone or correct continuing nonattainment

. The principle requirements for contingency measures are: Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to meet the standard by its attainment date

. The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be implemented without further action by the state or by EPA

. In general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the state of a failure. The contingency measures should consist of other control measures for the area that are not included in the control strategy for the SIP

. The m easures should provide for emission s reductions equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP calculated as the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the attain ment year

. See 72 FR 20586

, 20643.

The April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 199 0 (57 FR 13498, 13512) provides the following guidance on contingency measures which continues to be applicable: States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented without further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review

. In general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure. Contingency measures can include both Federal , state and local measures already scheduled for implementation or already implemented

. T he CAA requires contin gency measures that provide for additional emission s reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and are not included in these demonstrations

. In other words, contingency measures are intended to achieve reductions over and beyond those relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations

. Nothing in the CAA precludes a state from implementing such measures before they are triggered

. EPA has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation

. See , for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP revision);TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 127 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997) (final rule approving Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving Rhode Island ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule a pproving Connecticut ozone SIP revision)

. A court has upheld this interpretation

. See LEAN v. EPA , 382 F.3d 575, 5th Circuit , 2004

.

2

. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and 2011 Progress Report

Contingency measures in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP are composed of several types: a new commitment to an action by the SJVAPCD

, surplus reductions in the RFP demonstration

, post

2014 emissions reductions, a contingency provision in an adopted rule, reductions from incentive funds

, and reductions of specifi cally

- identified implemented rules that are not otherwise relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstration s

. Contingency measures are discussed in Section 9.2.2. of the Plan, on page 29 of the CARB Staff Report, and Appendix A of the CARB Resolution 08

- 28 adopting the Plan. Updated information on both the RFP and attainment contingency measures for the SJV 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan is provided in the 2011 Progress Report and Supplement . This information includes revisions to the RFP demonstration that shows excess reductions and updated estimates of the reductions in 2015 from the State‘s mobile source control program. S ee 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A,
p. 2, Appendix C, Table C

- 1, and CARB Progress Report supplement , Attachment 2

. CARB also discusses the contingency measure provision in Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy ; however, t his discussion addresses the contingency measure provisions for California‘s 8

- hour ozone plans and not the PM 2.5 plans.

a

. New Commitment As a contingenc y measure, the District proposed to request that CARB accelerate the adoption and/or implementation of any remaining C ARB control measures that have not yet been adopted or fully implemented, to the extent feasible

. This request would be made through a formal District Governing Board resolution adopted at a regularly

- scheduled Governing Board hearing to be held within two months after a finding by EPA of a failure to meet an RFP milestone

. Potential emission s reductions from this proposed contingency measure are not quantified

. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 9

- 7.

b

. General Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration and Post

- 2014 Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration

– In the June 2008 version of the Plan, t he method used to calculate emission s reductions needed to meet RFP benchmarks withheld a certain percentage of those reductions for contingency purposes: 1 perc ent of the baseline PM 2.5 inventory and 3 percent of the baseline NO x inventory

. These percentages equate d to roughly 1 tpd direct PM 2.5 and 17 tpd NO x being reserved for contingency

. N o reserve was included for SO x because SO x emissions levels were projected to be below the applicable benchmark s

. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 8

- 4

. The 2011 Progress Report updates the RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. See 2011 Progress Report, Table C

- 1. The updated demonstration does not include a contingency

meas ure reserve but rather shows that controlled emissions levels of NO x and SO x are or will beTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 128 below the required RFP benchmarks. SO x reductions that are in excess of those needed to meet RFP and contingency are reserved for PM 2.5 contingency measures at a n i nterpollutant trading ratio of 1 tpd SO x to 1 tpd direct PM 2.5
. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 2 and (for the trading ratio) , SJV PM 2.5 P rogress Report, Table 2

- 2.

Post

- 2014 Emission s Reductions

– The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan relies on t he incremental emission s reductions that will occur in 2015 from CARB‘s mobile source program to provide for contingency measures for failure to attain

. See p. 9

- 9

. The Plan does not provide an estimate of that these reductions

. CARB initially estimated the NO x reduction s at 21 tpd in 2015

. See CARB Staff Report, p. 29.

CARB update d the estimated incremental emissions reductions that will occur in 2015 from its mobile source program including the reductions expected from its In

- use Truck and Bus and In

- Use Off

- Road Engine Ru les. See CARB Progress Report supplement , Attachment 2

. The updated 2015 reductions are: 3 tpd SO 2 and 21 tpd NO x .

c

. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rule s /Incentive Funds

Rule 3170

– T his rule, Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee

, was adopted by the District in 2002 to meet the requirements of CAA section 185. 36 T his CAA section requires each major stationary source of VOC or NO x located in the a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment that fails to attain the ozone stan dard by the area‘s applicable attainment date to pay a fee to the
state in each calendar year following the attainment year for all em i ssions above a baseli ne amount until the area attains the ozone standard.

T he CAA does not specify how states may spend or alloca te the fees collected under a section 185 fee program ; therefore

, states have discretion on how to use the m

. EPA encourages
states to use the fees to provide incentives for additional ozone precursor emissions reductions from stationary and/ or mobile sourc es or for other purposes aimed at reducing ambient ozone concentrations in the affected area. 37 In the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the District indicated that it would use any funds collected under Rule 3170 (should the area fail to timely attain the 1

- hour ozone
stan dard and the rule be triggered) to implement other pollution control programs. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 9

- 8. The District has recently revised its CAA section 185 program to create an equivalent fee program as allowed under EPA‘s policy. See ftn

. 37

. The District‘s section 185 equivalency program includes not only revisions to Rule 3170 but also a vehicle registration surcharge of $12. The District expects to begin collecting vehicle registration fees in late 2011 and Rule 3170 fees in 2012. See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report Draft Amendments to Rule 3170 (Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee), April 21, 2011. No estimate of emissions reductions ex pected from the section 185 equivalency program is give n.

36 EPA approved Rule 3170 into the California SIP under CAA section 110(k) on January 13, 2010. At the same time, we disapproved the rule under CAA section 185 as failing to fully meet the requirements of that CAA section. 75 FR 1716.

37 For more information on requirements of CAA section 185, see Memorandum , Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard, EPA to Regional Air Division Dire ctors, Regions I

- X, ―Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1

- hour Ozone NAAQS,‖ January 5, 2010.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 129 Rule 4307

– On October 16, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4307

– Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBTU )

. These revisions lowered NO x limits, added SO 2 and PM 10 limits, and removed certain exemptions

. While the District commit ted to adopt revisions to Rule 4307 as part of the control strategy in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s control strategy, it had not include d emissions reductions from th ese revisions in either the ori ginal RFP or attainment demonstration

. Because of this, the reductions could be considered excess to these demonstrations.

Rule 4901

– On October 16, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted revisions to its wood burning rule, Rule 4901

–

Wood Burning Fireplace and Wood B urning Heaters, to incorporate a contingency provision in section 5.6.5

. This provision states that: On or after sixty days following the effective date of EPA final rulemaking that the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has failed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the applicable deadline, the [air pollution control officer] shall notify the public of an Episodic Curtailment for a geographic region whenever a PM 2.5 concentration of 20 μg/m 3 or greater or a PM 10 concentration of 135 μg/m 3 is predicted for the geographic region. This provision lowers the trigger for calling an episodic curtailment from the existing 30 μg/m 3

. During an episodic curtailment, the operation of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heater, or outdoor wood burning device (except when it is the sole source of heat) is prohibited

. See Rule 4901, section 5.6.1

. In its supporting documentations for this rule, the District did not quantify the emissions reductions expected should this contingency pro vision be triggered.

Rule 4702

– The District is currently anticipating adopt ion of revisions to Rule 4702

– Internal Combustion (I/C) Engines

– Phase 2, in August

, 2011

. Proposed revisions to this rule include lower ing the applicability threshold of the rule to engines 25 hp and greater (from 50 hp) and lowering NO x , VOC, and carbon monoxide limits for all spark

- ignition I/C engines that are used in non

- agricultural operations and maki ng these revisions effective January 1, 2014

. See SJVAPCD, Draft Staff Report For Draft Amendments To Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines

– Phase 2), September 9, 2010

. Wh ile the District committed to adopt revisions to Rule 4702 as part of the control strategy in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan‘s control strategy, it did not include d

e missions reductions from th ese revisions in either the original RFP or attainment demonstration. Because of this, the reductions could be considered excess to these demonstrations.

Incentive Fun ds

– The District has received and expects to continue to rece ive significant fund ing f or its incentive grant programs from sources that includ e the State‘s Carl Moyer Program, Proposition IB Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program, vehicle registration surcharges, its Indirect Source Review Rule (Rule 9510) , and the federal Diesel Emissions Reduction Act

. Through its incentive programs, the District has funded and continues to fund numerous projects that reduce emissions in the Valley. See 2008 PM 2.5 Pl an, Section 6.5 and SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report, section 2

- 3 . Fo r various reasons, mainly related to their SIP creditability, the emissions reductions generated f rom these incentive

- funded projects are not included in either the RFP or attainment demonstration in the Plan.

I n April 2007, the District ‘s Governing Board adopted a resolution committ ing to implement various procedural, record keeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that the all incentive

- based reductions achieved by the District meet EPA requirements and guidance for SIPTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 130 creditability

. 38 At the time th e P lan was submitted in 2008, the District expected these requirements would be in place in time for the 2009 and 2012 RFP milestone years so that the emission s reductions from its various incentive programs could be used to meet the contingency

measure re quirement and for other SIP

- related purposes

. The District currently estimates that the re are $ 112 million of incentive funds available to invest in the SJV for the 2010

- 2011 fiscal year. See SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report, p. 2

- 4. This is in addition to over $301 million received from 1998 until 2010. See SJV PM 2.5 Progress Report, Table 2

- 5. The progress report does not include an estimate of the emissions reductions achieved or anticipated from the use of these funds. 39

3. Proposed Action s on the Contingency Measures in the SJV 008 PM 2.5 SIP

In 2010 and2011 , we propose d to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency measures in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan . We found that

, although t he Plan include d suggestions fo r several potentially approvable contingency measures as well as several measures that d id not meet the CAA‘s minimum requirements for contingency measures (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs)

, it did not provide sufficient information t o determine if the emissions reductions from some of the approvable measures are SIP creditable

or to quantif

y the expected emissions reductions

. W e , therefore, were unable to determine if the Plan‘s contingency measure provisions provide d reductions roughly equivalent to one year‘s worth of RFP

. See 75 FR 74518, 74539 and 76 FR 41338, 41359 and Section II.J

. of both the 2010 and 2011 Proposal TSD s

.

4

. Evaluation and Conclusion s
Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, a state must submit cont ingency measures that meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and provide for the equivalent of roughly one year ‘ s worth of RFP

. One year‘s worth of RFP is determined by dividing the emission s reductions from base year levels that are needed for att ainment by the number of years between the base year (2005) and the attainment year (2014) . 72 FR 20586

, 20643

. We show t h is calculation for SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan in Table I

- 1 below

. We did not evaluating th e provisions in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP that address contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmarks. Information available to EPA and the public shows that SJV met its 2009 benchmarks for direct PM 2.5 , NO x , and SO x . See 2011 Progress Report , Table C

- 1 and section II

. H

. of this TSD. As a result, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2009 RFP benchmark no longer have any meaning or effect under the CAA and therefore do not require any review or action by EPA. In addition, as noted above, the purpose of RFP contingency measures is to provide continued progress while the SIP is being revised to meet a missed RFP milestone . Failure to meet the 2009 benchmark would have required California to revise the SJV PM 2.5 Plan to assure that the next milestone wa s met and that the Plan still provided for attainment. California has, in fact, prepared and submitted a

38 SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 07

- 04

- 11B, ―In the Matter of: Adopting Commitments to Enhance SIP Creditabi lity of Incentive

- Based Emissions Reductions,‖ April 30, 2007.

39 In the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, the District estimated that the $90 million per year of incentive funds then available to the SJV could provide 3.6 tpd of NO x emissions each year, accumulating year to year (that is, after five years, for example, the cumulative reduction would be 18 tpd). See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 9

- 9

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 131 revision to the SJV PM 2.5 SIP that shows that the SIP continues to provide for RFP in 2012 and for attainment by April 5, 2015.

Table I

- 1



### Reductions Needed from Contingency Measures

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x A 2005 baseline 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 attainment level 63.3 291.2 24.6

C Emissions reductions needed for attainment (A

- B) 22.7 284.2 1.8

D One year‘s RFP (C/9) 2.5 31.6 0.2

E One year‘s RFP as percent of 2005 baseline 2.9% 5.5% 0.8%

a. New Commitment CARB‘s measures are primarily aimed at reducing emissions from mobile sources. Accelerating their implementation to correct shortfalls in RFP and attainment would be appropriate given the contribution of mobile sources to PM 2.5 standard exceedances in the SJV and the importance of mobile source measures to reducing and eliminating those exceedances

. However, the process outlined in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan would require multiple steps to implement including the adopting of a resolution by the SJV U APCD‘s governin g board and rulemaking by CARB. Such a process would likely take more than a few months to complete.

Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA‘s long

- standing policies interpreting this section, contingency measures must require minimal additional rulemaking by the state and take effect within a few months of a failure to meet an RFP target or to attain. The District‘s proposed commitment to request accelerated implementation of CARB‘s measures meets neither of these requirements and thus does not qualify as a co ntingency measures under the CAA.

b. General Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration and Post

- 2014 Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration

- As shown in Table I

- 2 below, emissions levels of NO x and SO x will be below the required RFP benchmarks in 2012

. These surplus reductions are available use as NO x and SO x contingency measures for the 2012 RFP milestone. The 2011 Progress Report reserves the SO x reductions that are in excess of those needed to meet R FP and contingency as PM 2.5 contingency measures , using an interpollutant trading ratio of 1 tpd SO x to 1 tpd direct PM 2.5 to show equivalency

. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 2

. We do not, however, agree at this time with the use of an interpollutant trading ratio of 1:1 SO x to directTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 132 PM 2.5 as the District has not provided an adequate technical justification for this ratio. See

s ection II.B.4 above.

Post

- 2014 Emission s Reductions

- Additional emissions reductions resulting from the im plementation of adopted mobile source emission standards through fleet turnover in the 2015 and later may be used to meet the contingency measure requirement for failure to attain

. CARB provides estimates for reductions in 2015 from its mobile source contr ol program of 21 tpd NO x , and 3 tpd S O 2
. See CARB Progress Report supplement , Attachment 2.

Table I

- 2 

### Excess Reduction in Updated 2012 RFP Demonstration s Available for Use As Contingency Measures

(tons per annual average day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x Benchmark emissions level 68 354 25 Revised p rojected controlled emissions level (Table H

- 3) 70.9 33 6 20

Emissions above/

below benchmark emissions level 2.9

- 1 8.0

- 5

Excess SO x proposed to substitute for PM 2.5 4 .8

1

- Year‘s worth of RFP 2.5 31.6 0.2

c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rule s
Rule 3170

– The District expects to begin to collect fees under its CAA section 185 program in late 2011

. It is the District‘s intent to use the collected fees in its incentive s grant program. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, No. 10

- 10

- 14, October 21, 2010, p. 5

. We address the use of incentive funds as contingency measures below

.
Rule 4307

– Reductions from Rule 4307 are now included in the updated RFP and attainment demonstration contained in the 2011 Progress Report ; therefore, reductions from this rule may no longer be used for contingency measures purposes. 40

Rule 4702

– The District has a dopt ed revisions to Rule 4702 but the revised Rule has not been submitted to EPA or approved by EPA

. Because this rule is not currently a pproved by EPA

, it cannot be used for contingency measures purposes.

40 Reductions from the Rule, however, can be used for contingency measures purposes to the exte nt that they contribute to creating excess reductions in the RFP demonstration.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 133 Rule 4901

– We find that the contingency provision s in section 5.6.6 of Rule 4901 fully meet CAA requirements for contingency measures. The provision can be implemented with no additional rulemaking on the part of the District and must be implemented within 60 days of an EPA finding that the area has fail ed to attain the PM 2.5 standards. We approved the October 2008 revision of Rule 4901

, including the contingency provision

, into the California SIP on November 10, 2009, 74 FR 57907.

Incentive Funds

- As noted previously, the District has several incentive grant programs which use funds collected from a number of sources (including the District‘s CAA section 185 program) . These grant programs have the potential to generate considerable emissions reductions. While neither the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use of emissions reductions from incentive programs to meet all or part of an area‘s contingency measure obligation, the incentive programs must assure that the reductions are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent in accordance with EPA ‘s guidance

. S ee ―Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,‖ EPA

- 452/R

- 01

- 001 (January 2001)

. T he 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive grant programs expected to generate the emissions reductions nor the quantity of these emissions reductions t hat the District intend ed to use to meet the contingency measure requirement

. Therefore, we are unable to determine if they are SIP creditable or sufficient to provide in combination with other measures the roughly

one

- year‘s worth of RFP needed

. For these reasons, this measure does not currently meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures.

d. Conclusion

Table I

- 3 provides a summary of the contingency measures in the SJV PM 2.5 Plan

. The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan includes suggestions for several potentially approvable contingency measures as well as several measures that do not meet the CAA‘s minimum requirements (e.g., no additional rulemaking , quick implementation)

. For many of the potential approvable
cont ingency measures, t he Plan neither provides sufficient information for us to determine if the emissions reductions are SIP creditable (e.g., those from incentive grant programs) nor quantifies the expected emissions reductions from them.

The 2011 Progress Report , however, does show that there are surplus reductions in the RFP demonstration for 2012. Appendix C, Table C

- 1. As shown on Table I

- 4, these surplus reductions do not provide emissions reductions equivalent to approximately one

- year‘s worth of RFP w hen considered on a per

- pollutant basis

. EPA find s that the se surplus reductions are in sufficient to meet the CAA‘s requirements for RFP contingency measures

. 41

As also shown on Tables I

- 3 and I

- 4, t he continuing implementation of the State‘s mobile source program in combination with the District‘s contingency measure in Rule 4901, if triggered, will reduce emissions substantially in 2015 (the year after the attainment year of

41 In the 2011 Progress Report, the State assert s that these reductions are equal to at least one

- year‘s worth of RFP when considered on a PM 2.5 equivalency basis; however, to make this showing, the State relies in part on an interpollutant trading ratio of 1 ton of SO x reductions to 1 ton of P M 2.5 reductions. As discussed in section II.B.4. of th is TSD, there is insufficient technical support for this ratio and EPA is not allow ing its use as part of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. EPA may consider additional technical information submitted by the State to support an appropriate trading ratio and will provide an opportunity for public comment on such new information before allowing its use to meet a CAA requirement

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 134 2014). However, these re ductions do not provide emissions reductions equivalent to one year‘s worth of RFP when considered on a per

- pollutant basis. EPA finds that the se surplus reductions

are in sufficient to meet the CAA‘s requirements for attainment contingency measures

. Based on the above evaluation, EPA disapproves the RFP and a ttainment contingency measures in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR § 51.1012. Because we are approv ing the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the motor vehicle emis sion budgets, we are issu ing a protective finding under 40 CFR § 93.120(a)(3) for the disapproval of the contingency measures. Without a protective finding, the disapproval would result in a conformity freeze under which only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming Regional Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Programs can proceed. During a freeze, no new RTPs, TIPs or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform. See 40 CFR § 93.120(a)(2). Under a protective finding, however, the disapproval of the contingency measures does not result in a transportation conformity freeze in the San Joaquin PM 2.5 nonattainment area.

We received a few comments on our proposed disapproval of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP‘s contingency measures. We have considered these comments and determined that none change our determination that the contingency measures provisions are not currently approvable. We

summar ize these comments and provide full responses to them in section III.I. of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 135 Table I

- 3 

### Summary of Approvability of Contingency Measures from the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan

Measure RFP or

Attainment Contingency Measure? Approvable as a

Contingency Measure? Comment Tons per Average Annual Day

Year Direct

PM 2.5 NO x SO x Request CARB to expedite implementation of mobile source controls Both No Requires additional rulemaking, no short term reductions N/A N/A N/A

Ozone Nonattainment Area Fee 2012 RFP milestone/ Attainment No Reductions are not SIP creditable ( see Incentive funds

— currently not SIP creditable) Not quantified

Incentives Funds

– currently SIP creditable Both Yes Not quantified

Incentive Funds

– currently not SIP creditable Both No Reductions are not SIP creditable Not quantified

Excess Reductions in RFP Demonstration RFP Yes 2012 0 19.7 5

―New‖ Post Attainment Year Reductions Attainment Yes 2015 0.0 21 3

Revisions to Rule 4307 2012 RFP milestone/ Attainment No Reductions assumed in RFP and attainment demonstrations 2012 N/A N/A N/A

201 5 N/A N/A N/A

Revisions to Rule 4702 Attainment No Rule not adopted 201 5

– –– – Contingency provision in Rule 4901 Attainment Yes 2015 1.6 1 Not quantified

1 Phone conversation, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD, and Frances Wicher, EPA, August 26, 2010, valu e is average annual day

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 136 Table I

- 4 

### Summary of Reductions from Contingency Measures

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO x 2012 RFP contingency reductions (

- 2 .9 ) 1 8 5
Attainment contingency reductions 1.6 21 3

1

- year‘s worth of RFP 2.5 31.6 0.2TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 137 

### J. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 

### SIP

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP‘s goals of eliminating or reducing the s everity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards

. Conformity to the SIP‘s goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing vi olation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone. Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA‘s transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A

. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and transportation agencies, EPA

, FHWA

, and FTA to demonstrate that an area‘s regional transportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP

. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from existing and planned highw ay and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions bud gets (budgets) contained in all control strategy SIP s. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year

, each required RFP year or last yea r of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors

. PM 2.5 a ttainment and RFP plans should identify budgets for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors

. All direct PM 2.5 SIP budgets should include direct PM 2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear . A s tate must also consider whether re

entrained paved and unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are significant contributor s and should be included in the direct PM 2.5 budget

. See 40 CFR § 93.102(b) and § 93.122(f) and the conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031

– 40036 (July 1, 2004)

. An MPO may use budgets in a submitted but not

- yet approved SIP only if EPA has first determine d that the budgets are adequate . To be f ound adequate and to be eventually approv ed

, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements . In addition, t he budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations

. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 138 2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP

a. MVEB Submitted in SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan (s ubmitted June 2008)

The SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan included budgets for direct PM 2.5 and NO x for the attainment year of 2014 and the RFP years of 2009 and 2012

. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Section 7.2.2 and Appendix C

. The direct PM 2.5 budgets included tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear emissions but did not include paved road, unpaved road, and road construction dust because these were determined to be insignificant contributors to PM 2.5 levels in the Valley

. 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 7

- 5. No budgets for SO x were included because on

- road emissions of SO x were also considered in significant

. Id

. No budge t s were included for either VOC or ammonia because neither was considered a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. See sectio n II.C of this TSD.

b. Updated MVEB Submitted in 2011 On May 18, 2011, C ARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley and their documentation in Appendices D and A, respectively, of the 2011 Progress Report. On July 29, 2011, CARB submitted revisi ons to these updated MVEB in Appendix A

- 2 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

. 42 The revised updated MVEB are for direct PM 2.5 and NO x for the RFP year of 2012 and the attainment year of 2014

. See Table J

- 1 below. No budgets were included for the RFP year of 2009 because it is no longer applicable as a conformity analysis year. Additional information associated with the motor vehicle emission budget calculations were provided in Appendix C of 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and supplement

. Th e submittal s also includ e a trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow future decreases in NO x emissions from on

- road mobile sources to offset any

on

- road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO x :PM 2.5 ratio of 9:1. Transportation conformity trading mechanis ms are allowed under 40 CFR § 93. 124. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment modeling which established the relative contribution of each PM 2.5 precursor pollutant.

As described in the 2011 , Appendix A

- 2 , this trading mechanism w ould only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses for years after 2014 and, t o ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability of the SJV to meet the NO x budget, the NO x emissions reduction s available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the 2014 NO x budget has been met. Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trad e w ould be included in the conformity analysis. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions , Appendix A

- 2

, p. A

- 6

. Table J

- 2 below shows how the revised upd ated MVEBs were calculated. The baseline inventories are the initial SIP on

- road mobile source inventory submitted in the Appendix C of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. These baseline inventor ies continue to be based on the activity data (e.g. vehicle miles travel led) provided by the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan as submitted in June 2008.

42 The updates to the revised MVEB were i n response to EPA‘s action approving the SJV UAPCD Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR) on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26609). In our approval of the rule, we stated that the projected emissions reductions from the rule should not be credited in any attainment and rate of progress/reasonable further progress demonstrations. The updated budgets submitted on May 18, 2011 included reductions from this rule; the revised u pdated budgets submitted July 29, 2011 do not. The updates also corrected data entry errors in the revised budget calculationsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 139 The first adjustment, ―State Strategy Adjustment,‖ inc orporates the impacts of both the recession and the reductions from the amended Truck and Bus regulations , the solid waste collection and public fleet vehicles regulations , heavy duty chip re

- flash, and heavy duty truck idling regulations, smog check improvements, and reformulated gasoline

. The second adjustment, ―Adjustments to Baseline

, ‖ include the reductions from A ssembly B ill 1493 (Pavley

– greenhouse gas motor vehicle emissions standards )

, benefits from the on

- road portion of the Carl Moyer program and benefits from the SJV District‘s Rule 9310 for School Buses

.

Table J

- 1 

### Revised Updated PM 2.5 

### MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per average annual day) 1

County 2012 2014

PM 2.5 NO x PM 2.5 NO x Fresno 1 .5 35. 7 1.1 31. 4 Kern (SJV) 1.9 4 8

. 9 1. 2 43. 8 Kings 0. 4 10. 5 0.3 9.3

Madera 0. 4 9.2 0.3 8. 1

Merced 0. 8 19. 7 0.6 17.4 San Joaquin 1.1 24.5 0.9 21. 6

Stanislaus 0. 7 16.7 0.6 14.6

Tulare 0.7 15.7 0.5 13. 8

Source: CARB, 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , J uly 21 , 2011, p. A

- 6. Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth ton (0.1).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 140 Table J

- 2 

### Calculation of the Revised Updated PM 2.5 

### MVEB

for the San Joaquin Valley
(tons per average annual day)

County 2012 2014

PM 2.5 NO x PM2.5 NO x

Fresno Baseline Inventory 1.82 47.82 1.65 40.6 0

State Strategy Adjustment 0. 36 11. 99 0.5 6 9.07 Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0. 16 0.02 0.2 2

Budget 1. 5 35. 7 1.1 31. 4

Kern (SJV) Baseline Inventory 2.98 81.58 2.63 70.28

State Strategy Adjustment 1. 14 3 2

. 46 1.4 4 26.29 Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0. 23 0.01 0. 28

Budget 1

. 9 4 8.9 1. 2 43. 8

Kings Baseline Inventory 0.59 16.00 0.51 13.52

State Strategy Adjustment 0. 20 5. 47 0.2 6 4.20 Adjustment to Baseline 0.00 0. 05 0.00 0.0 6

Budget 0. 4 10. 5 0.3 9.3

Madera Baseline Inventory 0.50 12.30 0.46 10.62

State Strategy Adjustment 0.1 2 3. 1 4 0.17 2.55 Adjustment to Baseline 0.0 1 0. 05 0.01 0.0 7

Budget 0. 4 9.2 0.3 8. 1

Merced Baseline Inventory 1.19 29.15 1.05 24.67

State Strategy Adjustment 0. 40 9. 37 0. 50 7.16 Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0. 11 0.01 0.1 4

Budget 0. 8 19. 7 0.6 17.4

San Joaquin Baseline Inventory 1.39 35.24 1.29 30.27

State Strategy Adjustment 0.3 6 10. 73 0.4 6 8.58
Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0. 11 0.01 0. 14

Budget 1.1 24.5 0.9 21. 6TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 141 Table J

- 2 

### Calculation of the Revised Updated PM 2.5 

### MVEB

for the San Joaquin Valley
(tons per average annual day)

County 2012 2014

PM 2.5 NO x PM2.5 NO x

Stanislaus Baseline Inventory 0.84 22.25 0.76 18.69

State Strategy Adjustment 0.1 6 5. 58 0.2 3 4.04 Adjustment to Baseline 0.00 0. 06 0.00 0. 07

Budget 0. 7 16.7 0.6 14.6

Tulare Baseline Inventory 0.75 20.87 0.69 17.88

State Strategy Adjustment 0.1 3 5. 19 0.2 1 4.05 Adjustment to Baseline 0.00 0. 07 0.01 0.1 0

Budget 0.7 15.7 0.5 13. 8

Source: Source: CARB, 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , Ju ly 21 , 2011, Appendi x C

. Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth ton (0.1).

3. EPA‘s Actions on the MVEB in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP

a. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding On April 23, 2010, we notified CARB that we had found the budgets in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan for the RFP milestone years 2009 and 2012 were adequate and that the MVEBs for the attainment year of 2014 were inadequate for transportation conformity purposes

. We determined that the attainment year budgets were inadequate because they lacked specificity or enforceability of the emiss ions reductions relied on to demonstration attainment and therefore did not meet the requirements of our adequacy criteria at 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4))

. See letter Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, ―RE: Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Val ley PM 2.5 Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,‖ April 23, 2010

. We published a notice of our findings at 75 FR 26749 (May 12, 2010)

. The finding is available at EPA‘s transportation conformity website

, www.epa.go v/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm.

b. Proposed Action on the MVEBs in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP The April 2010 adequacy determination was based on our preliminary review of the plan. During our subsequent more in depth review of the Plan, we propo sed to determined that the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan d id not provide for reasona ble further progress as required by CAA section 172(c)(2). 75 FR 74518, 74537. As a result of this determination, we proposed to disapprove the budgets for the RFP years. Specifically, t he budgets , when considered togetherTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 142 with all other emission sources, are in consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment . 75 FR 74518, 74539.

We also proposed to disapprove the budgets for the attainment year of 2014, which we ha d already found to be inadequate, based on our initial proposed determination that the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not provide for attainment

. See 75 FR 74518, 74536. On July 13, 2011, we proposed to approved the r evised updated PM 2.5 budgets in cluded CARB‘s proposed 8

- Hour Ozone SIP Revision s

. See 76 FR 41338, 41360.This approval was contingent upon our receipt of a complete SIP submittal containing them. CARB made that complete submittal on July 29, 2011. See sect ion I.D.2. of this TSD.

c. Final Action on the Revised Update MVEB

EPA has evaluated the revised updated budgets against our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.318( e )(4) as part of its review of the budgets‘ approvability and have found them adequate

. See Table J

- 3 below. W e post the revised updated budgets on EPA‘s adequacy review web page on July 14, 2011 and requested comments by August 15, 2011 . We received no
comments

. We did receive a few comments on the MVEB during the comment period on the 2008 SJV PM 2.5 SIP. We have reviewed these comment and provided responses to them in section III of this TSD. No issues raised in these comments changed our finding that the MVEB as submitted are consistent with the SIP‘s attainment and RFP demonstrations or with the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations

. As discussed in sections II.G. and II. H, we have completed our detailed review of the 2008 SJV PM 2.5 SIP and supplemental submittals including the 2011 Progress Report

. Based on this thorough re view of these submittals, we are approv ing the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 SJV PM 2.5 SIP. T he revised updated PM 2.5 MVEB submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions are consistent with the se attainment and RFP demonstrations and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requireme nts including meeting the adequacy criteria in §93.118(e)(4). EPA, therefore, is a pprov ing them. Now that the approval of the budgets is finalized, the SJV MPOs and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to use the revised budgets in transportation conformity determinations. Due to the formatting of the budgets (combining emission changes, recession impacts and reductions from control measures) CARB will need to provide the MPOs with emission reductions associated with the control measures incorporated into the budgets for the appropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations so that they can include these reductions per 40 CFR § 93.122. In addition, for these conformity determinat ions, the motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the plan, for example emissions should be rounded to the nearest tenth (e.g. 0. 1 tpd).

d. Final Action on the Trading Mechanism As noted above, CARB included a trading mechanism to be used in transportation conformity analyses that use the MVEB budgets as allowed for under 40 CFR § 93.124. This trading mechanism allows future decrea ses in NO x emissions from on

- road mobile sources to offset any on

- road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO x :PM 2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB, theTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 143 trading mechanism would only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses for years after 2014. Also, to ensu re that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability of the SJV to meet the NO x budget, the NO x emissions reductions available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the 2014 NO x budget has been met. The trading mechanism w ill be implemented with the following criteria. The trading applies only to:

Analysis years after the 2014 attainment year.

On

- road mobile emission sources. Trades using vehicle NO X emissions reductions in excess of those needed to meet the NO x budget.

Trades in one direction from NO X to direct PM 2.5
. A trading ratio of 9 tpd NO X to 1 tpd PM 2.5
. Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade would be included in the conformity analysis. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, p. A

- 6

. EPA has reviewed the 9:1 NO x :PM 2.5 ratio as discussed in section II.D.4. of this TSD, and finds it appropriate ratio for trading between NO x and direct PM 2.5 for transportation conformity purpose in the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. We have determi ned that t he method discussed in the documentation is adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area

- wide emissions changes, such as are used in conformity budgets.

EPA believes that the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions in cludes an approvable trading mechanism for determining transportation conformity after 2014. EPA is approving the trading mechanism and all of the criteria for its use given on page A

- 6 of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions as enforceable components of the trans portation conformity program for the SJV for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also approving the use of this ratio in transportation conformity determinations for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS but only until such time EPA finds adequate or approves budgets deve loped specifically for the 2006 standard.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 144 Table J

- 2 

### Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor V ehicle Emissions Budget September 201 1
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93 .118(e)(4)(i) The plan was endorsed by the

Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing. Y The June 20 , 200 8 transmittal letter submitting the SJV 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the plan on May 22, 2009 , through a Boar d Resolution (0 8

- 2 8 ). CARB released the plan

on April 25 , 2007 and requested public comments . It held a public hearing on the Plan on June 14, 2007.

The Plan relies on reduction from measures and commitments in the 2007 State Strategy. The November 16, 20 07 transmittal letter submitting the 2007 State Strategy was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee. The transmittal letter indicates that CARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy for the SIP on September 27, 2007. CARB rele ased the 2007 State Strategy on April 26, 2007 and May 7, 2007 and requested public comments by the public hearing held on September 27, 2007. CARB updated both the SJV 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy in the 2011 Progress Report an d 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions . The May 18 , 2011 transmittal letter submitting the 2011 Progress Report was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the SIP Revision on April 28

, 2011 through a Board Resolution (11

- 24 ). CARB released the plan on March 24 , 2011 and requested public comments by April 23 , 2011 or at the public hearing held on April 24, 2011.
The July 29 , 2011 transmittal letter submitting the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the SIP Revision on July 21, 2011 through a Board Resolution (11

- 22 ). CARB released the plan on June 2 0, 2011 and requested public comments by July 20, 2011 or at the public hearing held on July 21 2011.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 145 Table J

- 2 

### Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor V ehicle Emissions Budget September 201 1
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) The plan was developed through

consultation with federal, state and local agencies; full implementation plan documentation was provided and EPA‘s stated concerns, if any, were addressed. Y The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan was developed through c onsultation with federal, state and local agencies which place with the San Joaquin Valley interagency consultation working group (the Model Coordinati ng Committee). Members of the consultation group include: EPA, FHW A, FTA, CARB, C altrans, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and each county‘s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) . The 2011 Progress Report and its Appendices A and D which describe the revised MVEB were made available to the MPOs and other agencies for review and comment during the public comment period. EPA received a copy of the draft 2011 Progress Report, the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and draft State S trategy but provided no written comments. However, in response to EPA‘s requests for additional information, CARB provide d Attachment A in the CARB Progress Report supplement

.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) The motor vehicle emission budgets

are clearly identified and precisely quantified. Y The updated MVEB for 2012 and 2014 are clearly identified and precisely quantif ied in Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and further described in Attachment A of the May 18, 2011 letter. These budgets reflect control measures that were already adopted at the time the CARB adopted the 2011 Progress Report on April 28, 2011

. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 3. CARB did not update the MVEB for 2009 because the 2009 budgets are longer needed for any conformity determination in the SJV. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 146 Table J

- 2 

### Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor V ehicle Emissions Budget September 201 1
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) The motor vehicle emissions

budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further
progress and attainment. Y EPA has concluded that the updated budgets for the year 2012 when considered together with all other emission sources are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress for the 1997 annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards. This finding is based on review of the revised RFP demonstrations in Appendix C (Table C

- 1) of the 2011 Progress Report. As documented in Section II.H. of this TSD, EPA is approv ing the revised RFP demonstration

. EPA has concluded that the upda ted budgets for the year 201 4 when considered together with all other emission sources are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 standards. This finding is based on review of the revised attainment demonstrations in the 2011 Progress Report. As documented in Section II.G. of this TSD, EPA is a pprov ing the revised attainment demonstration.
The revised updated MVEBs for direct PM 2.5 do not include emissions from

re

- entrained road dust (paved and unpaved) or road/transit construction activities . The 2008 SJV PM 2.5 plan, pp. 7

- 5 & 7

- 6, concluded that neither are significant contributors to PM 2.5 emissions in the SJV. EPA agrees that re

entrained road dust is not a significant contributor to PM 2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.
The re are no budgets for the PM 2.5 precursor SO x because on

- road vehicles are projected to be an insignificant contributor to PM 2.5 levels in the SJV in bo th 2012 and 2014. 2008 SJV PM 2.5 plan, pp. 7

- 5. There are no budgets for the PM 2.5 precursors VOC and ammonia because they are not considered attainment PM 2.5 precursors in the SJV and thus are not required to be controlled for PM 2.5 attainment. See SJV PM 2.5 plan, pp. 7

- 4 & 7

- 5 and section II.C. of this TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 147 Table J

- 2 

### Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor V ehicle Emissions Budget September 201 1
Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) The plan shows a clear relationship

among the emissions budget(s), control measures and the total emissions inventory. Y The emissions inventor y for all stationary, area, on

- road mobile, and non

- road mobile sources, and their relation to control measures and the reductions from existing measures are described in Appendix A of 2007 State Strategy and Appendix B of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan as updated by 2011 Progress Report

. The final inventories incorporating the reductions from adopted m easures are given in Tables B

- 1 and B

- 2 in Appendix B to the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and Appendix A , D and E of the 2011 Progress Report and Attachment A in the CARB Progress Report supplement.

Sec. 93.1 18(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously submitted

control strategy or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to any previous submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety marg ins ( see §93.101 for definition), and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled). Y CARB submitted revisions to the attainment and RFP demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan as part of the 2011 Progress Report. See Appendices A

– D and Attachment A in CARB Progress Report supplement . Attachment A specifically documents the changes in the planning factors, the new heavy duty truck inventory and the revisions to the control meas ures included in the updated budgets from the original budgets. EPA analyzed the information included in these reports to confirm that the updated MVEB are consistent with previous MVEB and revised as documented
Note that CARB did not update the MVEB for 2009 because the 2009 budgets are longer needed for any conformity determination in the SJV. 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5) EPA has reviewed the State‘s

compilation of public comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any implementation plan. Y The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan contains public comments and SJVUAPCD responses in appendix J to the P lan. Additional verbal comments were received during the adoption public hearings held by the SJVUAPCD and CARB and are also included as attachments to the June 2008 SIP submittal. Additional written and verbal comments were received during the public comment period and public hearing on the 2011 Progress Report. See CARB Resolution 11

- 24, p. 3 . We hav e reviewed the compilation of comments and responses and find the
responses (where provided) to be acceptable. No issues that might have affected our adequacy finding remain unanswered.

### III

- Responses to CommentsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 149 

### List of Comment Letters Received

We received eleven comment letters in response to our November 30, 2010 proposal (75 FR 74518) and two comments letters in response to our July 13, 2011 amended proposal (7 6 FR 41338 )

. Commenters on the November 30, 2010 proposal were: 1. [ AIR ] Brent Newell, General Counsel , Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, January 31, 20 11 , ―Comments on Proposed Action on the 2008 San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan fo r Fine Particulate Matter and 2007 State Strategy, Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 20 10

- 0 516 )‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) ; Martha Guzman, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundati on; Catherine Garoupa White, Director Central Valley Air Quality Coalition; Maria Covarruvias, President , Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano; Sal vador Partida, Co

- Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Bradley Angel, Director, Greenaction for Health & Environmental Justice; Adriano Martinez, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Marylia Kelly, Executive Director, Tri

- Valley CAREs. 2. Petition signed by 707 residents of the SJV and Ven tura County in support of AIR‘s January 31, 2011 letter.

3 . [Earthjustice]. Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, and Sarah Jackson, Research Associate, Earthjustice, January 31, 20 11 , ― Comments on EPA‘s Partial Approval/Disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley‘s Sta te Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter, Docket # EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 20 10

- 0 516‖ with enclosures. Comments are submitted on behalf of Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, Fresno Metro Ministries, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Sierra C lub, Natural Resources Defense Council, Tri

Valley CAREs; the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, and the Central Valley Air Quality Coalitions‘ Watchdog Committee.

4 . [SJV U APCD]. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, Janua ry 31, 2011

, RE: Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2008 San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter; 2007 State Strategy; PM 2.5 ; Proposed Rule (Docket Number: EPA

- R09

- OAR

2010

- 0516).

5. [CARB modeling supplement]. John DaMassa, Chief, Modeling and Meteorology Branch; California Air Resources Board, January 28, 2011, Attention: Docket No. EPA

R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516) with enclosure.

6 . [ C ARB]

. James N. Goldstene, Executive Office r , California Air Resources Board, January 31 , 20 11, Attention: Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516 with enclosures. 7. Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), January 31, 2011, Re: Docket number EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516 8. Email, Arthur D. Unger, December 12, 2010, Subject: Docket number 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516; FRL

- 9229

- 4)].TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 150 Commenters on the July 13, 2011 proposal were:
1

. [AIR ]

. Brent Newell, General Counsel , Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 12 , 20 11 , ―Comments on Proposed Action on the 2008 San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter and 2007 State Strategy, Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 20 10

- 0 516 )‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by Tom Frantz, President, AIR ; Kevin Hall, Director, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition; Maria Covarruvias, President , Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano; Sal vador Partida, Co

- Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Bradley Angel, Director, Greenaction for Heal th & Environmental Justice; and Adriano Martinez, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council

. 2. Petition signed by approximately 579 residents of the SJV and Ventura County in support of AIR‘s August 12 , 2011 letter.

3 . [Earthjustice]. Paul Cor t, Staff Attorney, and Sarah Jackson, Research Associate, Earthjustice, August 12 , 20 11 , ― Comments on EPA‘s Partial Approval/Disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley‘s State Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter, Docket # EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 20 10

- 0 516‖ with enclosures.



### A. General Comments

Comment : In its August 2011 letter, Earthjustice comments that EPA has proposed to approve ―without support‖ elements of the Plan that it had previously rejected for failing to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and further comments that EPA should disapprove the Plan and require a new plan be developed that meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Response : In November 2010, EPA proposed to disapprove most elements of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. These proposed d isapprovals were based for the most part on too high a percentage of the emissions reductions needed for attainment remained as commitments; inadequate documentation of the air quality modeling which meant that the attainment target was not adequately supp orted; and volatile organic compounds (VOC) controls were not included in the plan although available information indicated that VOC controls would be effective in reducing PM 2.5 levels in the SJV. See in general, 75 FR 74518 (November 30, 2010 ).

Since EPA ‘s proposal last November, California has provided additional documentation and made a number of submittals to address the EPA‘s proposed disapproval. These include additional documentation on the air quality modeling, additional analysis of existing data that indicates additional VOC controls would not be effective at reducing PM 2.5 levels in the SJV, revisions to the reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration based on updated inventories, and an update on the State‘s progress in meeting its commitmen ts. See CARB modeling supplement, Goldstene January 31, 2011 letter, and 2011 Progress Report. The State has also submitted its Truck rule 43 for approval into the SIP under EPA‘s SIP parallel process. 44 EPA

43 The ―Truck rule‖ is CARB‘s Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles,‖ Title 13, California Code of Regulations ( CCR ), section 2025, adopted December 11, 2008 and amended December 16, 2010. For a description of the Truck rule‘s requirements, See EPA‘s proposed approva l at 76 FR 40652, 40654 (July 11, 2011)

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 151 proposed to approve that rule on J uly 11, 2011. 76 FR 40652. EPA has also approved or proposed to approve a number of District rules which provide for NO x and PM 2.5 reductions in the SJV. See Table 2 at 76 FR 4133 8 , 41344. All these ru le actions have served to reduce the percentage of the emissions reducti ons remaining as commitments. In our July 13, 2011 proposal and the 2011 Proposal TSD, 45 we explained how these new State documents and submittals and our actions on the rules have remedied most of the problems that we identified in our initial proposal on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. EPA provided ample support for its proposed approval of those elements of the Plan that we had previously proposed to disapprove.



### B. Emissions Inventory

Comment : Earthjustice comments on the importance of emission inventories, n oting that CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that nonattainment plans ―include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.‖ Earthjustice objects to EPA ‘s propos al to a pprove the inventories in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP because they were current and accurate ―at the time the Plan was developed and submitted

, ‖ arguing that such language i s not in the CAA and is not a reasonable extension of Congress ‘s intent , which is to ensure the adoption and approval of SIPs that will achieve clean air meeting the NAAQS. Earthjustice argues that an inventory that is ―known to be wrong‖ undermines the modeling demonstration of the emission reductions needed to attain, and that EPA ‘s interpretation suggest s that r evisions to an inventory are needed only when it is found that the inventory is not current or accurate as of the date it is submitted . Earthjustice argues that such an interpretation undermines a ny assurance that ―the requir ements of [Part D of the CAA ] are met.‖
Response : EPA does not dispute the importance of emissions inventories. We evaluated the emissions inventories in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan to determine whether they satisfy the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and adequately support the Plan‘s RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations. Based on this evaluation, we have concluded that the Plan‘s 2005 base year emission inventory was based on the most current and accurate information available to the State and District at the time the Plan was developed and submitted and comprehensively addresses all source categories in the SJV area, consistent with applicable CAA requirements and EPA guidance. See 76 FR 41338

, 41342

- 41343 and 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.A.; see als o ―General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ 57 FR 13498

, 13502 (April 16, 1992) (―General Preamble‖). We do not agree with Earthjustice's suggestion that EPA interprets the CAA to require revisions to an emi ssions inventory only when it is found that such inventory is not current or accurate as of the date it is submitted. Significant changes to a base year inventory that undermine the assumptions in an attainment demonstration may, on a case by case basis, c all for a reevaluation of the modeling or other planning analyses supporting that demonstration. In this

44 See letter, James N Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, May 19, 2011.

45 The 2011 Proposal TSD is the ― T echnical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking A ction on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,‖ Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, June 29, 2011.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 152 case, however, as discussed in the proposed rule (76 FR 41562, 41567) and below, we have concluded that the State‘s changes to its methodologies for es timating future emissions do not significantly affect the 2002 base year inventories and, consequently, do not undermine the modeling or other analyses that rely on those inventories and that support the attainment demonstration in the Plan. Based on this technical assessment, we have concluded that it is not necessary in this case for the State to submit a revised base year inventory. We note that states are required to report comprehensive emissions inventories to EPA every three years under the Air Emiss ions Reporting Requirements in 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. See 40 CFR § 51.30(b). CAA section 172(b) provides that ―the State containing [a nonattainment] area shall submit a plan or plan revision (including the plan items) meeting the applicable requiremen ts of [section 172(c) and section 110]‖ on the schedule established by EPA, and section 172(c) contains, inter alia , the requirement that nonattainment plans ―shall include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources o f the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area.‖ We believe it is reasonable to read these provisions together as requiring that the State submit an inventory that is ―comprehensive, accurate, [and] current‖ at the time the State submitted it to EPA, rather than requiring that the State continually revise its plan as new emissions data becomes available. See Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al

. , Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458 (consolidated), May 5, 2011. States could n ever effectively plan for air quality improvements if they had to constantly revise their inventories as new data became available. Air quality planning is an iterative process and states and EPA must rely on the best available data at the time the plans a re created.

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that CARB has review ed and update d its emissions estimates for both on

- road and off

- road diesel equipment categories and ―discovered that it had radically overestimated emissions from‖ these categories. Using the information in the 2010 Off

- Road rule ISOR (p

. 2), 46 Earthjustice calculates the reduction in the SJV 2005 off

- road equipment inventory from these updates as 28.2 tpd of NO x and 1.4 tpd of PM 2.5

. Using information in the 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 1 9, 47 it calculates the reduction in the SJV 2005 inventory for sources subject to the rule from these updates as approximately 25 tpd of NO x and 1 tpd of PM 2.5 . Based on its calculations, Earthjustice asserts that CARB‘s updated emissions estimates reduce t he Plan‘s 2005 inventory by 9 percent for NO x and 3 percent for PM 2.5 rather than the estimates of 6 percent for NO x and 5 percent for PM 2.5 provided by CARB in its Progress Report supplement. 48 Earthjustice claims that no documentation is provided for thes e revised base year estimates and

46 CARB Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons [ISOR] for Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel

- Fueled Fleets and the Off

- Road Large Spark

- Ignition Fleet Requirements , October 2010, incl. Appendix D1 (―2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR‖). The Off

- Road rule is CARB‘s ―Regulation for In

- Use Off

Road Diesel

- Fueled Fleets ,‖ Title 13 CCR section s 2449 through 2449.3. The Off

- R oad rule was initially adopted on July 26, 2007 and amended on July 23, 2009 and December 16, 2010. For a description of the Off

- Road rule‘s requirement, See 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR, section IV. The 20 10 Off

- Road Rule ISOR also describes changes to the CARB‘s Large Spark Ignition Engine Fleet Requirements ( ― LSI fleet regulation ‖ ), Title 13 CCR sections 2775 through 2775.2

47 CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor

- Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, October 2010 (―2010 Truck Rule ISOR‖)

.

48 Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, May 18, 2011. ( ― CARB Progress Report supplement ‖ ).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 153 that the numbers CARB has provided do not match with the statements in the 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR and 2010 Truck Rule ISOR. It states that EPA should provide documentation of these adjustments to clarify the effect the di esel rule changes had on the base year inventory. Response : To c alculate its estimate of the change to the 2005 year inventory that results from

non

- recession related changes to the off

- road equipment inventory, Earthjustice relies on the following statement in the 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR , p.2, See also, p. 19 : ―[t]he net result of the recession and methodology changes was an almost 80 percent reduction in emissions from what had previously been estimated, with about half of this reduction the result of the recession, and about half to changes in inventory method s.‖ It takes the half of the 80 percent due to changes in inventory (40 percent) and applies it the 2005 emissions estimate for ―off road equipment category‖ (70.4 tpd NO x and 3.5 tpd PM 2.5 ) from the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, resulting in its reducti ons estimates of 28.1 tpd NO x and 1.4 tpd PM 2.5 . Earthjustice‘s calculations, however, err by applying the 40 percent factor to the entire ―off road equipment category‖ rather than the subset of the category subject to the off

- road rule and by applying a statewide average to the SJV inventory.
CARB‘s estimates of reductions due to recession and non

- recession factors are for the emissions from sources subject to the off

- road engine rule and not for entire ―off

- road equipment‖ category. Off

- road equipment su bject to the rule account for approximately 70 percent of the emissions in the off

- road equipment category. 49 Applying the 40 percent factor (which itself is a rough estimate) to the correct fraction of the off

- road equipment category, the estimated reducti ons are 20 tpd of NO x and 1.0 tpd of PM 2.5
. In addition, CARB‘s revisions to the inventories included revisions to the allocation of the equipment population by air basin. See Off

- Road Rule ISOR, Appendix D, pp. 30

- 33. For both the construction and minin g and industrial equipment categories, SJV saw a significant increase in the percentage of the equipment population allocated to it. For example, the SJV‘s allocation of the State‘s construction equipment population increased from 9.8 percent to 13.8
perce nt. Id ., p. 31. As a result, the adjustment due to non

- recession impacts is smaller for SJV than for the State as a whole. For the entire category of off

- road sources (which includes emissions from trains, planes, recreational equipment, farm equipment in addition to off

- road equipment), CARB estimated a net change in the 2005 emissions inventory of 22 tpd NO x and 1 tpd PM 2.5
. See 2011 Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 1. Because CARB made only limited revisions to the other source categories within the overall off

- road mobile source category , the net change in the overall category represent mostly the change to the off

- road equipment category. Thus the figures given in the 2011 Progress Plan Supplement (22 tpd NO x and 1 tpd PM 2.5 ) and the figures fro m Earthjustice‘s rough estimates based on statewide information in the Off

- Road Rule ISOR (24.5 tpd NO x and 1.2 tpd PM 2.5 ) are consistent.

49 The off

- road equipment category includes emissions from natural gas and gasoline powered industrial and commercial equipment as well as emissions from logging equipment, lawn and garden equipment and transportation refrigeration units that are not subject to the off

- road equipment rule. See ― Inventory of Off

- Road Equipment Subject to the Off

- Road rule,‖ September 28, 201 1. Data from CARB‘s on

- line emissions almanac at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 154 To calculate its estimate of the change to the 2005 year inventory that results from non

recession related changes to the truck and bus inventory, Earthjustice relies on the following statement in the 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 19 : Changes to emissions inpu ts independent of the recession, including out

- of

- state VMT estimates and lifetime mileage assumptions reduced baseline emissions by about 10 percent from what was assumed in 2008. It takes the 10 percent figure and applies it to the emissions estimates of 249.4 tpd NO x and 9.9 tpd PM 2.5 that it took from 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B to reach its estimates of 25 tpd NO x and 1 tpd PM 2.5
. 50 Earthjustice, however, erred in its calculations by applying this statewide average 10 percent figure to the inventory in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. CARB calculated the 10 percent reduction figure not from the SIP inventory but from the revised truck and bus inventory it developed for its initial adoption of the Rule in 2008. The key phrase in the quote cited above that indica tes this is ―from what was assumed in 2008.‖ Prior to adopting the rule in 2008, the State review ed and updated the inventory for truck s and buses. See 2008 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G. This review resulted in an approximately 10 percent increase in the st atewide baseline inventory for the categories of trucks and buses subject to the rule from the levels assumed in the SIP. 51 In effect, the recent inventory revisions returned the inventory, if recession

- impacts are excluded, to the levels assumed initially in the SIP.

We note that the s tatewide average of 10 percent masks the effects of these revisions on truck emissions in specific areas. One of the most significant changes to the truck inventory was a reduction in the estimate of VMT by interstate trucks. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, pp. 18

- 20. San Joaquin has the highest fraction of interstate truck VMT of any area in California and thus its truck inventory was impacted more by this change than the truck inventories for other areas. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G, p. 30. CARB e stimated baseline truck emissions in the SJV decreased approximately 13 tpd NO x and 2 tpd of PM 2.5 in 2005 due to the non

- recession changes to the truck inventory

. We summarize the above calculations in the Table III

- 1 below. This table shows that when Earthjustice‘s estimates are revised to correctly reflect the information in the ISOR‘s, they show less of an impact on the inventory than CARB estimated.

50 Earthjustice does not list the specific source categories whose emissions it summed to reach these figures; however, it appears that it included emissions from the heavy

- heavy duty diesel trucks, medium

- heavy duty diesel trucks, light

- heavy duty diesel trucks, urban buses (both gas and diesel), school buses, and other bus categories. The Truck rule, however, does not apply to light

- heavy duty diesel trucks or urban buses. See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for In

- Use On

- Road Diesel Vehicles

, October 20 08 (―20 08 Truck Rule ISOR‖), Appendix G, Table 1 . Subtracting emissions from these source categories results in emissio ns of 238.2 tpd NO x and 9.8 tpd PM 2 .5 .

51 T he 2008 Truc k Rule ISOR, Appendix G at p. G

- 63 gives a 2008 baseline statewide estimate of 860 tpd NO x for the truck and bus categories subject to the Rule while the 2007 State Strategy Appendix A, p. 116 gives an estimate of 780 tpd NO x . State Str ategy number is the sum of MHDDT, HHDDT, school bus, and other bus categories.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 155 Table III

- 1 

### Comparison of Effect of Non

- Recession Impact on the Base Year Emis sions

Inventory for Selected Categories (tons per average annual day)

Change in Truck & Bus Inventory (tpd) Change in Off

- Road Equipment Category (tpd) Total Change in

Emissions (tpd) Percent Change in

Overall Inventory

NO X PM 2.5 NO X PM 2.5 NO X PM 2.5 NO X PM 2.5 Earthjustice estimate 25 1 28.2 1.4 53.2 2.4 9% 3%

Earthjustice estimate revised 0 0 20 1. 0 20 1. 0 3.5 % 1. 1 %

CARB estimates 13 2 22 1 37* 4* 6% 5%

* Net change in on and off

- road inventories from 2011 Progress Report Supplement, Attachment 1, p. 1 (SJV 2005 Inventory).
CARB provides extensive documentation on its revisions to the truck, bus, and affected off

- road equipment categories in the 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G and 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR, Appendix D.

Comment : Earthjustice provided the following table of inventory numbers in its comment letter in support of its contention that CARB‘s revised inventories are not consistent with the information in the 2010 Truck ISOR and the 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR:

SJV PM 2.5 P lan Inventory Numbers (tpd)

2005 SIP* 2009 SIP* 2009 Revised 2014 SIP* 2014 Revised

Truck & Bus Rule Sources 249.4 NO x

9.89 PM 2.5 241 NO x

9.1 PM 2.5 (no numbers

found) 165 NO x

6.3 PM 2.5 88.6 NO x ***

1.9 PM 2.5 ***
Off

- Road Rule Sources 70.4 NO x

3.5 PM 2.5 58.8 NO x

2.9 PM 2.5 12 NO x **

0 .5 PM 2.5 ** 44.3 NO x

2.0 PM 2.5 14 NO x **

0 .6 PM 2.5 5**

* Source: 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B ** Source: 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR , Appendix D at D

- 48. *** Source: 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G at G

- 57. Earthjustice also notes that Appendix G‘s Table 36 identifies different revised baseline numbers for the off

- road equipment source category for 2014 than were provided in Appendix D of the 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR. It claims that there is no explanation for this discrepancy. We have used the figures from Appendix D. Response : EPA reviewed the numbers on Earthjustice‘s table and notes the following: Truck rule sources: As we noted in footnote 7, Earthjustice included emissions from the light heavy duty dies el truck, the urban gas bus and urban diesel bus categories in its SIP numbers, although all three categories are not regulated by the Truck rule.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 156 Off

- Road rule sources: As we also noted above, only about 70 percent of the emissions in the off

- road equip ment category are from equipment that is subject to the Off

- Road rule. Earthjustice‘s numbers assumes that all the emissions in the off

- road equipment category are subject to the rule. Earthjustice claims that there is an unexplained discrepancy in the r evised baseline numbers for off

- road sources for 2014 between Table 36 in the 2010 Truck Rule ISOR Appendix G and the 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR, Appendix D

. The only baseline numbers for off

- road equipment on Table 36 are from the unrevised pre

- rule SIP inve ntory. The other numbers on Table 36 are the estimated post

- rule levels emissions levels for the Off

- Road rule as originally adopted (―Adopted‖) and as proposed for revision (―Proposed‖). Appendix D (Table 5, p. D

- 48) shows updated emissions estimates and compares the updated baseline with the regulation scenario. The only overlap between Table 36 and Appendix D is the ―Proposed‖ column on Table 36 and the ―Regulation‖ column on Table 5. The first gives the 2014 NO x reduction as 12.4 tpd and the second give s the value as 12 tpd. The PM 2.5 values are identical. The difference between the two is simply how the NO x numbers are displayed. On Table 36, NO x reductions are given to the first decimal place (12. 4 tpd) while on the Table 5, they are given rounded to a whole number (1 2 tpd).

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that ― EPA cannot approve these inventories as complying with the requirements of section 172(c)(3) knowing that the data are not valid for purpos es of building an attainment plan. ‖ Response : EPA evaluated the effect of the inventory changes on the RFP and attainment demonstration and determined that the inventory changes would not affect their approvability. See 2011 Proposal TSD, sections II.B.5 . and II.H.4. We therefore disagree with the assertion that we are approving these inventories ―knowing that the data are not valid for purposes of building an attainment plan.‖

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that even if EPA approve s the inventories, suc h approval ― cannot be used as an excuse to build a revised plan on these data ‖ and that a ny new PM 2.5 plan ― must include updated inventories that reflect the best data available at that time. ‖ It requests that EPA be clear in its final action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan that future plan revisions must be based on updated inventories. Response : The SJV was designated nonattainment for the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard in December 2009 and a new plan to address that sta ndard is due in December 2012. As we stated in our 2011 proposal, w e expect California will base this new plan for attaining the 2006 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard on the most comprehensive, accurate, and current emissions inventory of actual emissions available at the time it develops and submits that plan. 76 FR 4133 8 , 41343.

Comment : Throughout its comments, AIR uses the term ―recession reductions‖ which it defines

as ― the emission reductions the [C] ARB claims have occurred as a result of the reces sion .‖
Response : In its comments, AIR calculates what it c onsiders ―the total reductions from baseline reductions without recession reductions‖ as 1 1 tpd of PM 2.5 , 195 tpd of NO x , and 0.9 tpd of SO x . These figures are the same as the calculated reductions from the baseline measures prior to theTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 157 updates to the 2014 baseline inventory. 52 Based on these calculations, AIR seems to consider the ―recession reductions‖ to be the difference between the 2014 baseline inventory submit ted with the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan in 2008 and the revised 2014 baseline inventory submitted with the 2011 Progress Report in 2011. By labeling this difference as ―recession reductions,‖ AIR attributes the difference entirely to revisions to the economic foreca sts. This is not entirely correct. Changes to the 2014 baseline inventory include revisions not only to the economic forecasts but also to a variety of other factors (out

- of

- state vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment popul ations, load factors, and hours of use, etc.) used to calculate emissions from the trucks, buses, and certain off

- road equipment categories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E. CARB estimates that revisions to the truck inventory excluding recession impa cts reduced truck emissions statewide by 10 percent from the 2014 baseline levels estimated when the Truck rule was adopted in 2008 while recession impacts reduced the baseline level by a further 7 percent. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 19. For off

- road
equ ipment, CARB estimates that inventory changes independent of the recession were responsible for half the overall reduction in projected statewide emissions. See 2010 Off Road Rule ISOR, p. 17. We note that these figures are average statewide figures and no t specific to the SJV.

Comment : AIR contends that in the 2011 Progress Report, CARB first claims that the reduced economic activity caused by the recession has reduced 2014 emissions levels in the SJV by 2.7 tpd of PM 2.5 , 63.1 tpd NO x and 0.1 tpd of SO x . AIR further contends that CARB claims that the recession has caused current inventories of the goods movement and construction sectors to be lower than projected in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. Finally, citing EPA‘s statement in the 2011 Proposal TSD about the eff ect of the 2007

- 2009 economic recession on activity levels in the State‘s construction and goods movement sectors, AIR asserts that accounting for the recession through inventory adjustments is improper. Response : CARB does not claim that the recession a lone has reduced the projected 2014 baseline emissions in the SJV nor did it provide the numbers cited by AIR. A s discussed in the response to the preceding comment

, revisions to the baseline inventory took into account not only changes to the State‘s econ omic forecasts but also updated information on out

- of

- state VMT estimates, cumulative mileage, equipment populations, and other data used to calculate emissions from trucks, buses, and certain off

- road equipment. The emissions reduction figures that AIR as cribes to CARB are figures EPA calculated using data provided by CARB. EPA uses the phrase ―adjustments to the baseline‖ to refer to the difference between the 2014 baseline initially submitted in the 2008 SJV PM 2.5 Plan and the recently revised 2014 base line as submitted in the 2011 Progress Report. This ―adjustments to baseline‖ figure is nothing more than EPA‘s summary of the overall impact of both recession and non

- recession related changes between the two projected inventories. EPA calculated this adj ustment from

52 See line D on Table 7 in the November 30, 2010 proposed action on the SJV PM 2.5 SIP at 75 FR 74518. On this table, t he baseline NO x reductions are listed as 199.2 tpd but include 4.2 tpd of uncreditable reductions that are not included in AIR‘s numbers. By ― baseline inventories‖ or ―projected baseline inventories, we mean projected emissions inventories for future years that account for, among other things, the ongoing eff ects of economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements . A 2014 baseline inventory is important because this year is the ―attainment year

, ‖ the year by which all reductions needed for attainment need to be in place for the SJV. See 40 CFR 51.100 7(b).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 158 summary data CARB provided in Appendix E of the 2011 Progress Report. The adjustment represents the net results of CARB‘s changes to its inventories rather than the changes themselves.

CARB revised its inventories for trucks and diesel off

- ro ad equipment to incorporate new and better data including new research on truck travel within California. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G. These revisions were not mere adjustments to previous inventories but thorough reviews of much of the data that goes into estimating emissions from these sources. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G and 2010 Off

- Road Rul e ISOR, Appendix D. 53 These inventory revisions also included review of current and future activity data (such as fuel consumpti on, diesel fuel sales, trucking industry tonnage reports, truck sales trends, and truck registration data ) for these categories a s well as economic forecasts from a number of reputable

sources. 54 Throughout its development of these revisions, CARB held workshops seeking public review and input into its work. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 13. In all, the result of CARB‘s efforts is a m ore accurate 2014 baseline emissions inventory for the SJV. Emission projections are a function of change in activity (growth or decline) combined with changes in the emission rate or controls applicable to emission sources. Projected inventories are, ther efore, necessarily affected by forecasts of industrial growth, population growth, and transportation growth, among other factors. 55 EPA guidance emphasizes the importance of developing reliable methods for estimating future source activity levels as part of the SIP planning process. 56
We disagree with AIR‘s assertion that ―EPA claims that the [C]ARB ha s opted to take credit for the decrease in the inventory in the attainment demonstration as  ̳ a line

- item adjustment to the baseline inventories

. ‘‖ EPA state d i n the 2011 Proposal TSD (pg. 18) that ―California is reflecting these recession impacts as a line

- item adjustment to the baseline inventories.‖ This statement was incorrect and should have read that EPA (not CARB) is reflecting the recession impacts as a l ine

- item adjustment to the baseline inventories. EPA believes this adjustment is appropriate in light of the impact of these emissions changes on the baseline. We should have also been clearer that the 2014 adjustments included the technical revisions to t he inventory that are discussed on page 19 of the 2011 Proposal TSD. Finally, we note that although AIR objects categorically to the revisions to the projected emission inventories based on CARB‘s revised economic forecasts, it provides no information to

53 For a n overview of these changes and their results, See the presentation to the CARB Board by CARB‘s Planning and Technical Support Division on November 18, 2010, entitled, ―Diesel Inventory Improvements for Regulatory Development,‖ av ailable at h ttp://www.arb.ca.gov/board/books/2010/111810/10

- 10

- 9pres.pdf and in the EPA‘s docket for this rule.

54 See CARB, ―ARB Staff Assessment of the Impact of the Economy on California Trucking Activity and Emissions 2006

- 2014,‖ draft December 2009, avai lable in the docket for this rule. S ource s of economic data included California Department of Finance, California Legislative Analyst‘s Office, California Energy Commission, UCLA Anderson School, Beacon Economics, University of the Pacific, Congressional Budget Of fice, and US Energy Information Agency. Id . pp. 11

- 12.

55 See ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X (December 1999) at 1

- 1 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf)

.

56 See ―Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA

- 450/4

- 91

- 019 (July 1991) at pg. 6 and section III.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 159 refute CARB‘s e xtensive documentation of the impact of the economic recession on air pollution generating activity . It also provides no information to refute CARB‘s non

- recession related revisions to the projected inventories

.


### C. Air Quality Modeling

Comment : Earthjustice comments that the inventory is used to calibrate models of the air pollution problem by looking at the emissions inventory for a specific year that resulted in the ambient concentrations measured during that same year. It argues that having an accurate and current inventory is therefore critical to determining the nature of the pollution problem and the reductions that will be needed to attain the national standard. Response : EPA agrees with the commenter that an accurate and curren t inventory is a crucial input to the development of the model application and attainment demonstration (although we note that it is more accurate to say the emission s inventory for a specific year drives the model predictions, and ambient concentrations d uring that same year are then used to assess the accuracy of the model). However, as discussed below, EPA concluded that these recent changes do not affect our evaluation of the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan.

Comment : Earthjustice object s to EPA noting that the District claimed substantial fugitive dust control as a justification for using a variation on EPA‘s Speciated Modeled Attainment Test (SMAT), give an alleged EPA finding that the District‘s dust controls are not substantial.
Response : EPA believes the issue of the adequacy of the District‘s dust control regulation s is moot in this context. EPA did note a Plan statement about fugitive dust controls and SMAT, but that statement is in the context ( 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

, p. 3

- 20) of SJ V concerns over the level of speciation detail in the default EPA method and is not a statement about the adequacy of fugitive dust controls. Areas that do not have substantial fugitive dust, primary carbon, and metal components in their PM 2.5 measurements, and therefore do not rely heavily on controls of these elements have little need to distinguish certain of the PM 2.5 components. The Plan statement basically says that the default EPA approach lumps these together as ―other,‖ whereas SJV

wan ted the ability to distinguish them to adequately account for the affect of controls on each component. It is acceptable to use a finer level of speciation detail than listed in the EPA Guidance 57 : the central idea of SMAT is that each chemical species beha ves differently and is affected differently by controls, so they should be individually handled before summ ing the m to get a total predicted concentration for compar ison to the NAAQS.
EPA, the District, and CARB could have been clearer about the distincti on between SMAT and SANDWICH ( s ulfate, a djusted n itrate, d erived water, i nferred c arbonaceous material balance approac h ). Some statements about SMAT are actually about SANDWICH, which can be used as a particular step within SMAT. SMAT is the overall approa ch to accounting for PM 2.5 species components in the attainment demonstration, whereas SANDWICH is a method for determining the species components of PM 2.5 monitored concentration s , given the limitations of available measurements. The Plan‘s rationale for a variant on SMAT comprises a variant on SANDWICH as well. This variant is primarily to address the shortcomings of SANDWICH in

57 ―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8

- Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze

, ‖ EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007, p.56.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 160 dealing with the ammonium ion in the SJV, which is ammonia

- rich and has more ammonium nitrate than ammonium sulfate, unlike most areas of the country. These issues are addressed in the Plan Appendix G, the CARB modeling supplement, 58 and the EPA 2011 Proposal TSD (p.40). EPA did not rely on any claims about the adequacy of fugitive dust controls in determining that the Plan attainme nt demonstration‘s approach to SMAT and SANDWICH is acceptable.

Comment : Earthjustice comments that a simple screening analysis cannot substitute for an unmonitored area analysis, as it is inadequate to address the sharp ambient concentration gradients th at occur in near

- highway areas. Response : EPA agrees that the simple screening analysis in the Plan as originally submitt ed in 2008 is not an adequate substitute for an unmonitored area analysis (UAA) and note the Plan‘s deficiency with respect to the UAA in our November 2010 proposal. See 75 FR 74518, 74530. As noted in the 2011 proposal (76 FR 41388, 41348) and 2011 Proposal TSD (pp.42

- 43), however, CARB subsequently submitted a modeling supplement that included a UAA consistent with EPA Guidance. See CARB modeling supplement, p. 139. The UAA support the conclusion that there would not be any NAAQS violations at locations away from monitors, and EPA has evaluated and accepted that conclusion. As for whether the UAA itself adeq uately addresses the comm enter‘s underlying concern about sharp concentration gradients, the EPA Guidance states:

―The unmonitored area analysis is intended to be the primary means for identifying high PM 2.5 concentrations outside of traditionally monitored locations. ... Based o n the monitoring guidance, we believe that an unmonitored area analysis conducted at 12 km or finer resolution is sufficient to address unmonitored PM 2.5 for the annual NAAQS. Conducting the unmonitored analysis at 4 km or finer resolution will provide an even more detailed analysis of the spatial gradients of primary PM 2.5 , especially when evaluating violations of the 24

- hr. NAAQS.‖

These modeling guidance recommendations are consistent with the requirements of the EPA‘s PM 2.5 monitoring rules. The modeli ng guidance UAA spatial scale recommendations are intended to capture neighborhood scale and larger areas, since the monitoring rules do not require micro or middle scale monitors for either the annual or 24

- hr PM 2.5 standards. CARB‘s UAA was conducted at a resolution of 4 km, so it is more detailed than EPA‘s recommended approach for UAA. In addition, it is intended for areas with a large primary PM 2.5 contribution (that is, direc tly emitted rather than formed chemically over time), and relying on local pr imary PM controls to reach attainment. EPA Guidance

, p.100. By contrast, the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan mainly relies on area

- wide control of NO x , a PM 2.5 precursor, rather than on control of local primary PM 2.5
.

58 C ARB modeling supplement, ―Three

- Dimensional Grid

- Based Photochemical Modeling

- Related Responses to the US EPA‘s Technical Support Document‖, California A ir Resources Board, January 28, 2011, p.100 (SJV_Modeling_Information_1

- 28

- 2011.pdf).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 161 Comment : Mr. Frantz c omments that the SJV District has misrepresented the winter of 2008

- 2009 as the cleanest on record and has made questionable claims of air quality progress, whereas in reality PM 2.5 has worsened in recent years, except for improvement in 2009

- 2010. Mr. Fra ntz, therefore, urges EPA to independently analyze the data instead of relying on District claims. Earthjustice similarly comments that air quality worsened after 2005 despite the economic downturn, so that new modeling should be performed to account for u pward trend. Response : EPA did review the evaluation of air quality progress presented in the Plan and also independently examined air quality data. See 2011 Proposal TSD

, p.6 and p.45. A ir quality monitoring data is useful for a general understanding of the SJV‘s air quality problem, as well as for use in supplemental analyses that accompany the modeled attainment demonstration. Downward trending emissions and ambient concentrations would tend to support the conclusion that the area is on track toward att ainment of the NAAQS , although evaluation of such trends should account for the particular location, time period, and air quality metric examined. In addition, overall trends may be hard to discern given the year

- to

- year variability of meteorology and othe r factors.

The Plan relies on data that was available at the time it was developed, focusing on 2001

- 2006, for which the Plan‘s Weight of Evidence analysis makes a strong case for air quality progress according to several metrics, including design value c oncentrations, frequency of high concentrations, concentration of PM 2.5 component species, and emissions. We conclude that these analyses adequately support the attainment demonstration . EPA also looked at a longer period, 2000

- 2010, and found that the sli ght PM 2.5 concentration increase shown in the Plan for 2006 continued through 2008 and flattened in 2009 . Although PM 2.5 concentrations continued to improve in 2010 , the Bakersfield area ‘s annual and 24

- hour PM 2.5 design values calculated from 2008

- 2010 da ta were the highest in the U.S. See 76 FR 41338, 41339. We note, however, that data over the longer time frame shows there has been substantial air quality progress over the past decade. See TSD, section I.B.1. The concentration increases during 2006

- 2009 are not well understood, but they may have been partly a result of unfavorable meteorology during that time. District and CARB efforts
to evaluate the effect of meteorology on air quality trends are under way. The higher values during that period do weaken the case made in the Plan‘s Weight of Evidence analysis which is a supplemental analysis to the attainment demonstration itself, but are not themselves grounds for disapproving the attainment demonstration or the Plan.

Comment : Citing 40 CFR § 51.1000 and 72 FR 20586, 20600, Ea rthjustice asserts that attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015 will require review of ambient data from 2012, 2013, and 2014. Earthjustice also asserts that the majority of emission s reductions in th e Plan are delayed until 2014 and argues that modeling ambient concentration in 2014 does not provide an accurate picture of what emissions will be in 2012 and 2013. It further state s that the modeling year must be adjusted to give a more reasonable predic tion of what a 3

- year average concentration from 2012

- 2014 will be since it is this concentration that will determine if the Valley has attained the PM 2.5 standards by the attainment date. Finally, Earthjustice asserts that the fact that the majority of re ductions are in 2014 violates the reasonable further progress requirement. Response : We disagree with Earthjustice‘s assertion that the Plan delays the majority of emission reductions until 2014 and therefore fails to satisfy RFP requirements. As explain ed inTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 162 our amended proposal (76 FR 41338

, 41355

- 41357) and further in section II.H. of this TSD, t he majority of the reductions needed for attainment occur well before 2014. T he Plan‘s RFP demonstration shows that more than 87 percent of the NO x , 80 percent of the PM 2.5 and all the SO x reductions needed for attainment will occur by 2012. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C, p. 1. We explain further in section II. H

. of this TSD our reasons for concluding that the 2008 PM 2.5 provides for RFP consistent with t he CAA and the PM 2.5 i mplementation rule

. 59 We also explain in section III.E. our reasons for concluding that the Plan demonstrates that all control measures needed for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards will be in place as expeditiously as practicable and no later than the beginning of 2014, consistent with the CAA and 40 CFR § 51.1007(b) (requiring ―implementation of all control measures needed for attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the beginning of the year prior to the atta inment date‖). See section II.G. and II.D. of this TSD.

We also concluded that the attainment demonstration in the Plan was developed consistent with procedures in EPA's modeling guidance. In addition, to a degree the modeling procedures already reflect th e expected continuing emission decreases during the years before the attainment year. T he monitored base year design value reflects a n emissions decrease over the three years of 2004

- 2006, not just the single 200 5 emission year. T he projected design value reflects a modeled change to that monitored design value, so it too is consistent with some decreases occurring over multiple years, not just the single year of 2014

. Finally, we note that Earthjustice conflates the requirements governing EPA‘s action on

a n attainment demonstration under CAA section 172(c)(1) with those governing an attainment determination under CAA section 179(c). Earthjustice appears to assume that a demonstration of attainment by April 5, 2015 , requires a demonstration that the area wil l have air quality measurements at or below the level s of the standard s three years prior to that date. This is incorrect. An attainment determination under CAA 179(c) is a fact

- based determination made after the attainment date based on air quality monito ring data. 60 An attainment demonstration, on the other hand, is a predictive tool for assessing what air quality w i ll be at a future time. An attainment demonstration is based on air quality modeling showing that the projected design value of the relevant p ollutant in attainment year will be at or below the level of the relevant ambient air quality standard. Se e 72 FR 20586, 20605 to 20609. Additionally, for a PM 2.5 nonattainment area subject only to the requirements of subpart 1 of title I, part D of the C AA, a State may demonstrate that in the attainment year, the area will have air quality such that the area could be eligible for the first of two one

- year extensions allowed under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C). Under CAA section 172(a)(2)(C), an area that does not have three years of monitored data demonstrating attainment of the PM 2.5 NAAQS but has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable SIP, and that has no more than minimal number of exceedances of the NAAQS in the attainment year, may receive a one

- year extension of its attainment date. If the same conditions are met in the

59 Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z ―PM 2.5 implementation rule.‖

60 A determination of attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard is based on monitoring data that shows a 3

- year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations of less than 15 μ/m 3 , and a determination of the attainment of the 1997 24

- hour PM 2.5 standard is based on monitoring data that shows the 3

- year average of 98th percentile 24

- hour concentrations is less than 65 μ/m 3

. See 40 CFR § 50.7.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 163 following year, the area may receive an additional one

- year extension. Should the SJV area qualify for both of these extensions, the relevant 3

- year period for determining whether the area has attained the PM 2.5 NAAQS would be 2014

- 2016. 61

Comment : Earthjustice and AIR comment that CARB‘s emission inventory update necessitates new attainment demonstration modeling. AIR alleges that EPA‘s 2011 Proposal TSD stated that updates should trigger new modeling . AIR notes EPA‘s statement in that TSD that the model underpredicts. In addition

, AIR questions EPA‘s reliance on unreviewed model sensitivity results from CARB as the basis for not requiring new modeling. Earthjustice comments that the difficulty of performing new modeli ng is not a valid reason for approving an erroneous attainment demonstration. It adds that EPA‘s method for assessing the effect of the inventory update has the ―obvious flaw‖ that it relies on design value changes to within hundredths of a percent, starti ng from design values that are

, according to Earthjustice, acknowledged to be

erroneous. Response : While some large emission inventory changes might indeed necessitate new modeling, EPA does not agree that the inventory changes were large enough to subs tantially affect the SJV modeling conclusions, or to invalidate the SJV attainment demonstration. As EPA stated in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p. 47 ) ideally new modeling would be performed when an area‘s emissions inventory is changed. However, since the cost in time and resources of remodeling and consequent reworking of a p lan is not trivial, administrative necessity requires a judgment call about when changes are large enough to merit new modeling; there is no automatic trigger. An important criterion in mak ing this judgment is whether the changes would affect the conclusion that the p lan‘s emission reductions are adequate for attaining the NAAQS. Another consideration is the uncertainty inherent in modeling; although model results may be reported to several decimal places, model performance goals for fractional bias are typically in the range of 30 percent. Plan‘s Regional Model Performance Analysis, p.12, 62 and EPA Guidance Appendix B. 63 Small changes in the emission inventory are likely to have small impact o n future year design values . This is not to discount the importance of an accurate emission inventory, but rather to make the point that relatively small changes in inventory estimates do not necessarily invalidate a model application. EPA find s that the 5

- 6 percent base year emission decreases due to the inventory updates are relatively small c ompared to the overall 50 percent reduction in emissions between the base and future years

. EPA did assess the effect of the emission s inventory improvements on the attainment demonstration, using a procedure described in the 2011 Proposal TSD and other supporting documents. EPA noted in the 2011 Propos al TSD (p.48) that the emissions update revealed some model bias. The model appears to be underpredicting (biased low ): its emission inputs are now known to be too high, so its predicted concentrations should have been higher, too. Model bias is

61 EPA has long interpreted analogous provisions for ozone nonattainment areas in CAA sections 181(a)(5) and 182(c)(2) in this same manner. See Brief of Respondents, EPA, in Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al ., Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458 (consolidated), May 5, 2011; see also Environmental Defense v. U.S .EPA , 369 F.3d 193 (2 nd Cir. 2004) (denying pe tition for review of EPA‘s approval of New York‘s 1

- hour ozone attainment plan based on, inter alia , EPA‘s reasonable interpretation of the extension provision in CAA section 181(a)(5) )

.

62 The ―Regional Model Performance Analysis‖ is an Appendix to the 20 08 PM 2.5 Plan.

63 ―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 . (―EPA Guidance‖ )TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 164 an important issue that modelers address in developing the model application for a specific area and pollution episode, through testing and refinement of a model‘s many inputs. The bias problem is somewhat ameliorated by the use of models in a relative sense via ―relative re sponse factors‖ (RRFs), as recommended in EPA Guidance (p. 20) . The various influences that lead to model underestimation in the base year also would also be expected to cause underestimation in the attainment year, and these tend to cancel out in the RRF ratio calculation used to project the future effect of controls. In other words, the effect of model bias is minimized when it is accounted for at both end points, the base and attainment years. In a similar vein, EPA assessed the effect of the emission s update on the attainment demonstration, essentially by removing the bias revealed by the update from both t he base year and the attainment year

. 64 The bias was estimated by combining the emissions changes with an estimate of model PM 2.5 sensitivity per unit of emissions change. The effect of removing the bias by this procedure was to increase predicted attainmen t year annual PM 2.5 design values by 1

- 2 percent. EPA finds that this is small compared to the overall 22 percent change in design values from the base year to the future year due to emission controls, and that it does not change the overall modeling concl usions . But even with this increase added in, the predicted concentrations meet the NAAQS. This is a quantitative showing that the emission updates are small enough that they do not invalidate the attainment demonstration. As described in the 2011 Proposal TSD (section II.B), EPA reviewed the development of the model application, the procedures used to develop the model inputs, model testing methods and performance statistics, and the methods used to compute RRFs and attainment year PM 2.5 design values. EPA finds that CARB applied these methods appropriately, including to the sensitivity results and believes that these modeling inputs and RRF calculations were carried out as described by CARB . As a result, we find that the sensitivity results provide a reaso nable basis for assessing the effect of the inventory update on the attainment demonstration. EPA does not agree with Earthjustice that starting from the Plan‘s modeled design values and ending with small design value changes constitute flaws in the proced ure for estimating the effect of the baseline inventory revisions

. All modeling has uncertainty and bias, including any new modeling that would be done using the updated emission inventory estimates. Administrative necessity, therefore, requires a judgment call about whether such problems are substantial enough to compromise regulatory decisions. Air quality m odeling experts from regulatory agencies, academia, and consulting firms we re involved in developing the SJV modeling . It underwent successful diagnos tic testing

, and it performs well. EPA find s that it continues to constitute an adequate basis for the attainment demonstration.
Further, EPA believes that the original modeling is basically sound in how it portrays SJV atmospheric chemistry and transpor t, and that results derived from model sensitivity tests are a reasonable approximation to what would result from new modeling with the updated inventory. EPA‘s procedure for estimating the effect of the inventory changes using model sensitivity results do es make a number of assumptions: emission changes are small enough that the model response is linear, model sensitivity is similar in the starting and ending years, and the

64 This procedure is in some ways parallel to but is not the same as the RRF calculation and could be applied even if the model were not used in a relative sense. The inventory estimates the emission s reduction between the base and future years. An RRF scales the monitored design value using the relat ive model response to a given emission s reduction estimate, in order to account for that reduction. The procedure here scales the model‘s future predictions using model sensitivity, in order to account for changes in the emission reduction estimate.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 16 5 spatial and temporal distribution of emissions is little changed with the inventory update. EPA finds that these assumptions are reasonable and that the procedure it used provides strong evidence for the attainment demonstration‘s validity. As for the smallness of the design value changes resulting from the procedure, EPA does not believe this is a substantive issue. Any procedure (even new modeling) that starts with small emission changes will necessarily result in small design value changes : within a small range, over which the chemistry does not shift fundamentally, ambient concentrations are approximately proportional to emissions. This is not a case of an overly precise tiny number being added to a large erroneous random number, but rathe r of an adjustment ratio applied to a number derived from extensive data and analysis . Some intermediate steps in the calculation procedure that EPA used to evaluate the emissions inventory change did involve tenths of a percent (not hundredths as stated b y the commenter), but th is is largely an artifact of s howing the procedure in multiple steps for comprehensibility

. EPA could have done the calculation in a single step to avoid th is artifact. When a 10 percent change in NO x emission results in a design

va lue change of 1.4 percent, a calculation using this model sensitivity result will necessarily involve fractions of 1 percent or less. In this case, t he emission s inventory update involv ed a change in NO x emissions of less than 10 percent, and thus, would b e expect to a lso yield relatively small design value changes.

Comment : The District comments that they support the additional documentation for air quality modeling and for showing that VOC is not a precursor has been provided to EPA by CARB. The Distric t believes the documentation is sufficient to allow EPA to approve the modeling and reverse its proposal to include VOC as a precursor. Response : In our July 2011 proposal, we evaluated the additional documentation for air quality modeling and proposed to approve the air quality modeling. We also evaluated the additional documentation related to whether VOC should be a precursor and proposed to find that VOC is not a precursor. We are finalizing these proposals today.

Comment : Earthjustice comment s that g iven these problems, the 9:1 NO x to PM 2.5 relative effectiveness ratio cannot be used for transportation conformity or other p urposes, unless it is supported with new modeling. Response : EPA does not agree with Earthjustice that the modeling problems are substantial enough to invalidate the 9:1 ratio for NO x to direct PM 2.5 emission trading in the transportation conformity context. As discussed above, EPA believes that the modeling is basically sound, including the model‘s (relative) sensitivity to emissio n changes. There is no established method for determining trading ratios in conformity, but as discussed in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p.148), EPA find s that the model sensitivity

- based method used by CARB for determining an equivalency or relative effectivene ss ratio is adequate for assessing the effect of area

- wide emissions changes, such as are used in conformity budgets. The method modeled ―across the board‖ emission changes over the entire modeling domain; emissions considered in transportation conformity are also domain

- wide. Trading in other contexts could involve additional consideration of spatial and temporal variation of the emissions, and would require an additional technical demonstration by the State and evaluation by EPA. EPA is not approving the trading ratio for any other purpose than in conformity budgets.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 166 

### D. PM 2.5 

### Attainment Plan Precursors

Comment : Earthjustice comments that EPA should rely on the November 2010 proposal‘s technical demonstration that VOC should be considered a PM 2.5 plan pr ecursor and should disapprove the Plan for its failure to address control of VOC emissions. The commenter states that EPA reversed its earlier VOC finding without receiving any new credible evidence on the issue. It discussed various evidence in favor of V OC as a precursor, including statements in the Plan, the relative size of the VOC and NO x inventories, the fraction of ambient PM 2.5 that is organic carbon, results from modeling studies, and a statement by District staff that VOC reductions may reduce PM 2 .5 more than do reductions of SO 2 , which is considered a plan
precursor. Response : The PM 2.5 implementation rule establishes a presumption that VOC is not a PM 2.5 plan precursor requiring controls

. See 40 CFR § 51. 1002(c)(3) . This presumption may be
overt urned if either EPA or the s tate technical provides an appropriate demonstration showing that VOC emissions from sources in the state significantly contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area

. See 40 CFR § 51. 1002(c)(3) (i) and (ii). The pr eamble to the implementation rule suggests various analyses that could be part of such a demonstration, such as emissions inventory, speciation data, modeling information, or other special studies. But the preamble is not prescriptive on required technical demonstrations, and neither the preamble nor the rule define s ―significantly contribute ‖. Under the rule, excluding VOC as a n attainment plan precursor does not require a showing that VOC controls are ineffective or counterproductive. Rather, since VOC is already excluded by presumption, the lack of a clear showing that VOC controls are effective is sufficient for it to remain excluded. For the November 2011 proposal, EPA reviewed various monitoring and modeling studies on the role of VOC as a PM 2.5 precursor in the SJV. EPA proposed to find that these studies constitute a technical demonstration that VOC is a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, and used that as a basis to propose disapproval of the Plan, which lacks VOC controls. Earthjustice correct ly notes that CARB did not submit any new study results per se in response to our 2010 proposal but rather reinterpretation of same modeling studies that EPA had already examined. For the 2011 proposal, EPA reviewed and accepted several of CARB ‘s arguments m ade in its VOC supplement 65

. C ARB noted the importance of considering simultaneous VOC and NO x reductions, a more realistic scenario than VOC

- only or NO x - only reductions, given the various controls that are already in place for the ozone plan. The only stud y to consider simultaneous reductions found a disbenefit from VOC control, while NO x control continued to be beneficial. C ARB discounted one study that had found VOC control to be beneficial by noting that it had used artificially doubled VOC emissions in order to perform reasonably well at predicting PM 2.5 . For another study, CARB pointed out some features of the multi

- day model response to VOC reductions that are inconsistent with the photochemical VOC pathway to PM 2.5 formation and that the benefits from VOC reduction were seen only at high PM 2.5 concentrations that are seldom seen today.

65 Let ter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Frances Wicher, Office of Air Planning, EPA Region 9, January 28, 2011, Attachment 4, ―Air Resources Board comments on U.S. EPA‘s November 30, 2010 proposal that VOC be considered a significant PM 2.5 Pre cursor for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP).‖ ( ― CARB VOC supplement ‖ )TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 167 EPA found these arguments persuasive enough to raise question about the efficacy of VOC controls for reducing PM 2.5 levels in the SJV . Even setting aside concern that V OC control could worsen PM 2.5 concentrations in some circumstances, EPA finds that the evidence of the effect iveness of VOC controls is at this time not clear enough to overcome the presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule that VOC should not be a n att ainment plan precursor

. However, EPA also believes it is important that reductions of VOC, ammonia, and other PM 2.5 precursors be more thoroughly explored with realistic model sensitivity and other analyses as part of future modeling efforts in the SJV.

EPA had not considered the SO 2 statement described by Earthjustice. However, it appears to be based on the receptor modeling performed by the District; the 1.4 μg/m 3 benefit of VOC mentioned in the statement is cited in the Plan‘s Receptor Modeling Documen tation (p.82). Both CARB and EPA consider the receptor modeling to be a supplemental analysis, whereas the CMAQ photochemical modeling is the basis for the Plan attainment demonstration and for conclusions about the effectiveness of controls. The lack of a chemical mechanism in receptor modeling calls into question its usefulness for determining the efficacy of VOC controls, since the main pathway for VOC to form PM 2.5 is via photochemical reactions with NO x . Unfortunately, all of this is somewhat ambiguous in the Plan because in places the Receptor Modeling Documentation also mentions CMAQ photochemical modeling as a partial basis for its conclusions. Earthjustice also argues that if VOC control is more effective than SO 2 control, and SO 2 is a plan precurs or, then VOC should also be a plan precursor. This argument has some intuitive appeal. However, as discussed above, EPA‘s PM 2.5 implementation rule establishes a presumption that VOC is not a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor absent an appropriate technical demonstration for the specific nonattainment area. Regulation of SO 2 as a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor, on the other hand, is required in all PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(1). Thus, EPA cannot rely on an argument about the relative effectiveness of VOC and SO 2 control to establish VOC as an attainment plan precursor. To the extent that Earthjustice intended to challenge EPA‘s determinations regarding PM 2.5 plan precursors in the PM 2.5 implementation rule, that challenge is outside th e scope of this action.

Even if it w ere known that controlling VOC would be more effective than controlling SO 2 , that would not in itself imply VOC should be an attainment plan precursor unless SO 2 control had also been demonstrated to be effective. There has not been such a demonstration for the SJV; SO 2 is an attainment plan precursor by presumption, not because controlling it has been shown to be effective in this area. Indeed, the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan includes a statement that SO 2 control is not effective ( Receptor Modeling Documentation, p.81 66 ), despite the District statement quoted by the commenter. Given these conflicting statements, the SO 2 premise of the commenter‘s argument has not been established, even if the argument was admissible.

EPA addressed al l other arguments submitted by Earthjustice in both our 20 10 proposal and 2011 proposal. See 2010 Proposal TSD pp.50

- 60, 67 2011 Proposal TSD pp.52

- 66). The main arguments are briefly summarized here. The Plan itself is somewhat contradictory on the VOC

66 The ― Receptor Modeling Documentation ‖ is an appendix to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan.

67 The 2010 Proposal TSD is the ―Draft Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,‖ Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, November 8, 2010.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 168 issue, with some explicit rejections of VOC as a plan precursor, but also some generic statements on VOC as a possible precursor under some conditions; in its Receptor Modeling Documentation there is an outright statement that VOC control is effective, whi le in its response to public comments there are several statements dismissing VOC as a precursor (Comments and Responses, 2008 PM 2.5 Plan Appendix J). In our 2011 proposal, EPA emphasized the inconclusiveness of these multiple statements, and also to the f act that the receptor modeling is considered by C ARB and EPA to be a supplemental analysis, and not the basis for the attainment demonstration. The monitoring studies were not conclusive as to the efficacy of VOC controls, but in our 2011 proposal EPA gav e more emphasis to statements in one study 68 that highlighted aerosol nitrate formed aloft at night, a PM 2.5 formation pathway that may not driven by local VOC emissions, and hence little affected by VOC controls. The imported ozone pathway was also describ ed as the dominant in one of the modeling studies, as well as by CARB staff involved in modeling of th e California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) epis odes. The modeling studies gave mixed results, with one finding no benefit from VOC
contr ols, another finding a PM 2.5 disbenefit from VOC reductions when they occur simultaneously with NO x reductions, and several finding VOC control to be effective, at least at certain times and places. In our 2010 proposal, EPA emphasized aspects of the later studies that generally found VOC controls to be effective, but did not give sufficient weight to aspects that showed little effectiveness, or to an earlier study that showed VOC controls could be counterproductive . Based on CARB‘s supplemental submittals, however, we have concluded the technical information is not conclusive enough at this time to overcome the presumption against regulation of VOC as a plan precursor in the SJV area for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards.

We note a s a practical matter, that substantial VOC reductions have already occurred and will occur in the future a s a result of SJV‘s ozone plans, so whether or not these VOC controls are part of the PM 2.5 Plan will not negatively affect air quality. If there are air quality benefits from the VOC controls, they will be realized either way.

Comment : Mr. Frantz also questions why there has been little air quality progress in Bakersfield in comparison to other locations, and suggests that ammonia from factory dairies, together with relatively high NO x emissions from the oil industry, may be the cause of increased ammonium nitrate concentrations. He thus urges that EPA reconsider accepting the exclusion of ammonia as a PM 2.5 plan precursor. Response : Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, like VOC, ammonia is not a PM 2.5 plan precursor unless either EPA or the State provide s an appropriate technical demonstration showing that ammonia emissio ns from sources in the State significantly contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(4). The causes of Bakersfield‘s relatively poor progress are not fully understood. Its location at the southern end of the SJV, with more restricted airflow and a greater chance of stagnant conditions and long

lasting early morning radiation inversions, is a factor in its poor air quality. Two additional projects under way for the SJV are ―Review, Develop, and Evaluate Improved Ap proaches for

68 Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., and Roberts P.T ., 2006, ―Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol Formation in the San Joaquin Valley During Winter‖, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 56: 1679

- 1693.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 169 Corroborative & Weight

- of

- Evidence Analyses‖ and ―Develop Improvements to the PM 2.5 Inventory to Better Reconcile with Ambient Measurements‖. These are being conducted under the auspices of the Central California Air Quality Studies (CCAQS) Te chnical Committee. The latter will include improvements for estimates of the ammonia from livestock and also will include a task to ―Investigate Specific High PM 2.5 Areas in the CCAQS Domain,‖ particularly Bakersfield. These projects will add to the unders tanding of the recent trends in Bakersfield, and could indicate analysis improvements or potential controls to aid in air quality progress. For more information on these studies

, s ee C ARB ‘ s Central California Air Quality Studies web site ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/ ) and SJV ‘ s ―Request for Proposals‖ web page ( http://www.valleyair.org/RFPs/RFP.htm ). To address the specific question posed by Mr. Frantz, if ammonia and NO x were both enhanced in Kern County relat ive to other locations, as suggested by the commenter, that would not in itself change the PM 2.5 formation from being NO x - limited to ammonia

- limited. As discussed in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p.45 and pp.52

- 53), the Plan provided ample evidence that ammonia i s so abundant that controlling it would be ineffective for addressing PM 2.5 . That evidence included the relative unresponsiveness of the receptor and photochemical models to ammonia reductions, CRPAQS studies of the relative abundance of NO x and ammonia,

c orrelation between NO x and ammonium nitrate concentrations, and plots of ammonia against nitric acid showing the former‘s much larger concentration. Another point noted in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p.55) is the relative spatial homogeneity of nitrate found in one CRPAQS study quoted in the Plan, thought to be caused by entrainment of aerosol nitrate formed aloft and then transported throughout the area, as opposed to being caused by especially high localized emissions. Since there has been no technical demonst ration to reverse the PM 2.5 implementation rule presumption that ammonia should not be considered a PM 2.5 plan precursor, and there is evidence that ammonia control would not be effective, we conclude that we do not currently have a basis for reversing the presumption against regulation of ammonia as a plan precursor in the SJV area for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards EPA agrees, however, that continued exploration of the precursor issue in SJV is warranted.

Comment : The District comments that they su pport the additional documentation f for showing that VOC is not a precursor has been provided to EPA by CARB. The District believes the documentation is sufficient to allow EPA to reverse its proposal to include VOC as a precursor. Response : In our July 2011 amended proposal, we evaluated the additional documentation related to whether VOC should be a precursor and proposed to find that VOC is not a precursor. We are finalizing this proposal today.

Comment : Mr. Unger commented that he supported recognizing the role of NO x , SO x and VOC in the formation of particulate pollution. Response : EPA‘s PM 2.5 implementation rule requires PM 2.5 plans to include controls for NO x and SO x sources but does not require t hem to include controls for VOC sources unless there is a sufficient demonstration that such controls would significant reduce PM 2.5 levels. See 72 FR 20586, 20589. After a review of the available scientific literature on the role of VOC on the formation of PM 2.5 in the SJV, EPA has determined that there is insufficient information a t this time to reverse the presumption against regulation of VOC controls in the 2008 PM 2.5 plan

. See 76 FR41338, 41350

- 41353 and section II.C. of this TSD. We note t hat, as an o zoneTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 170 nonattainment area, the SJV is required to control VOC and already has in place numerous VOC control measures.



### E. Reasonably Available Control Measures

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that EPA must disapprove the Plan‘s RACM/RACT demonstration because many of the rules that the District and CARB rely on have not been approved as satisfying RACT requirements. Earthjustice also states that the demonstration fails to address VOC controls or to provide adequate air quality modeling documentation. Fi nally, Earthjustice asserts that several of the rules intended to provide the majority of NO x and PM reductions from stationary sources in the Valley were adopted with substantially weakened controls from what was anticipated during plan development and wi ll now provide only a fraction of what is needed to bring the area into attainment by 2014. Response : Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditio usly as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambie nt air quality standards.‖ For over 30 years, EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require that States adopt only those ―reasonably available‖ measures necessary for expeditious attainment and to meet RFP requirements. 40 CFR § 51.1010; see a lso 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) (Part D of title I of the CAA ―does not require that all sources apply RACM if less than all RACM will suffice for [RFP] and attainment‖); 57 FR 13498

, 13560 (A pril 16, 1992) (―where measures that might in fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require implementation of such measures‖); ―Guidance on the Reasonably Avail able Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,‖ November 30, 1999 (1999 Seitz Memo) ( a State may justify rejection of a measure as not ―reasonably available‖ for that area based on technolog ical or economic grounds); and 70 FR 71612 , 71661 (November 29, 2005) (noting that States ―need adopt measures only if they are both economically and technologically feasible and will advance the attainment date or are necessary for RFP‖). EPA‘s interpreta tion of section 172(c)(1) has been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, et al ., 294 F. 3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA , 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002).

Under the PM 2.5 i mplemen tation rule at 40 CFR § 51.1010

, a RACM demonstration must include ―the list of the potential measures considered by the State, and information and analysis sufficient to support the State‘s judgment that it has adopted all RACM, including RACT.‖ 40 CFR § 51.1010(a). In addition, ―[p]ote ntial measures that are reasonably available considering technical and economic feasibility must be adopted as RACM if, considered collectively, they would advance the attainment date by one year or more.‖ As explained in the preamble to the PM 2.5 i mplemen tation r ule, Congress provided EPA and States broad discretion to determine what measures to include in an attainment plan, and the language in section 172(c)(1) requir ing only ―reasonably available‖ measures and implementation of these measures ―as expedi tiously as practicable‖ indicates that Congress intended for the RACT/RACM requirement to be driven by an overall requirement that the measure be ―reasonable.‖ 72 FR 20586

, 20610 (April 25, 2007)

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 171 Thus, the rule of ―reason‖ drives the decisions on what con trols to apply, what should be controlled, by when emissions must be reduced, and finally, the rigor required in a State‘s RACT/RACM analysis. See id

. States may, as part of a RACM analysis, consider the costs of potential control measure s and whether the measure s can be readily and effectively implemented without undue administrative burden. See i d. ( citing 55 FR 38327 and 66 FR 26969)

. As a threshold matter , we note that VOC controls are not a required element of the RACM demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 P lan because EPA agrees with the State‘s determination that VOC are not attainment plan precursors for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV

area. See 76 FR 41338, 41343 (citing 40 CFR § 51. 1002(c) and § 51.1010) and our responses to comments on attainment plan precursors, in section III.D. above

. Second, as to air quality modeling documentation, we explain in section III.C. above in

our response s to comments on the air quality modeling our reasons for concluding that the modeling in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan adequately supports the Plan‘s RACM and attainment demonstration.

Third , as to Earthjustice‘s assertions about RACT, we note that although CAA section 182(b)(2) requires States to implement R ACT for specific types of sources in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, there is no specific RACT control mandate for PM 2.5 purposes that applies to specific sources in PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. Rather, under the PM 2.5 implementati on rule, RACT and RACM are those measures that a state finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as practicable in the specific nonattainment area. See 76 FR 41338, 41343 (citing 40 CFR § 51.1010 and 72 FR 20586

, 206 12). EPA has, therefore , evaluated the collection of reasonably available control measures that CARB and the District have adopted and submitted with the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan to meet the RACM/RACT requirement in CAA section 172(c )(1) and 40 CFR § 51.1010

. See 76 FR 41338

, 41343

- 41346 and 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.D

. Finally, as to the specific NO x and PM control options that Earthjustice asserts should also be required as RACM, we have considered whether these additional control options are reasonably available for implementation in SJV considering technica l and economic feasibility, and as to those measures that are potentially reasonable, whether they would considered collectively advance the attainment date in the SJV b y one year or more. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the control options identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV area

.

Comment : Earthjustice states that EPA should not approve Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) as RACT because there is no justification for the District‘s decision to exclude control requirements for under

- fired charbroilers (UFC) from the rule. In support of this assertion, Earthjustice states, among other things, th at: (1) SJVUAPCD had initially found certain control options for UFC units to be cost

- effective and that its later revisions to these cost estimates in response to comments were based on inappropriate criteria, such as its ― 10 percent of the industry‘s pro fits‖ test; (2) that BAAQMD‘s adoption of UFC control requirements in 2007 indicates that such controls are considered feasible; and (3) that SJVUAPCD‘s failure to control UFCs means that PM emission reductions from this rule are reduced from more than 2
t ons per day (tpd) to just 0.02 tpd.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 172 Response : EPA recently determined that Rule 4692 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion of the California SIP. 69 See 76 FR 38340 (June 30, 2011) (proposed rule) an d ―Revisi ons to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District" final rule, pre

- publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4692) . As part of that action, EPA reviewed the District‘s evaluation of potentia l UFC controls and concurred with the District‘s conclusion that those controls are not reasonably available for implementation in the SJV area at this time, considering technological and economic feasibility ( See EPA‘s June 9, 2011 TSD at pp. 4

- 5). Giv en EPA‘s long

- standing position that States may justify rejection of certain control measures as not ―reasonably available‖ based on economic grounds (among others), we believe that it is appropriate for the District to consider the cost of controls at source s actually located within the specific area to determine if they are economically feasible with respect to those sources. Although we do not endorse the District‘s use of a ―10 percent of the industry‘s profit‖ test for economic feasibility, we agree with the District‘s conclusion that UFC controls are not economically feasible based on the facts and circumstances related to actual cost of those controls in the SJV area. For the reasons stated in our separate proposed and final rules on Rule 4692 , we conclu de in this final action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan that Rule 4692 requires all RACM for charbroilers in SJV, and that the additional controls for UFC identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan because they are not reas onably available considering technological and economic feasibility.

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that Rule 4103 (Open Burning) achieves far less than what was anticipated in the Plan, and that the District had inappropriately relie d on the ten percent of profits test to exempt from control the three largest source categories of NO x , PM, and VOC covered by the Rule

. Earthjustice asserts that this resulted in foregone emission reductions of 1,030 tpy NO x , 1,262 tpy PM 2.5 and 1,138 tpy VOC. Response : EPA recently determined that Rule 4103 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 40660 (July 11, 2011) (proposed rule) and ―Revisions to the California State Impl ementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;" final rule, pre

- publication notice signed September 30, 2011(Rule 4103)). As part of that action, EPA reviewed the District‘s evaluation of the postponements of certain burning pr ohibitions for certain agricultural crop categories and concurred with the District‘s conclusion that alternatives to open burning for these crop categories are not reasonably available for implementation in the SJV area at this time, considering technolog ical and economic feasibility ( See , e.g., EPA‘s June 2011 TSD at pp. 5

- 7). For the reasons stated in those separate proposed and final rules concerning Rule 4103, we conclude in this final action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan that Rule 4103 requires all RACM for open burning in SJV, and that the additional controls identified by Earthjustice are not required RACM for purposes of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan because they are not reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.

69 As explained in our June 30, 2011 proposal to approve Rule 4692 (76 FR 38340), the sp ecific ozone RACT requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) does not apply to this rule because there are no Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for this source category and no major sources of NO x or VOC subject to this rule in the SJV area. See 76 FR 38340, 38341. We therefore interpret the commenters‘ reference to RACT as referring to the general requirement for reasonably ava ilable control measures (including RACT for stationary sources) in CAA section 172(c)(1). See 40 CFR § 51.1010.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 173 Comment : Earthjustice sta ted that SJVUAPCD added a contingency provision to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters ) stating that , should the Valley fail to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards by the attainment date, the PM 2.5 concentration triggering a mandator y wood burning curtailment would be lowered from 30 to 20 μg/m 3 . Earthjustice contends that, given the underperformance of other SJVUAPCD rules, this ―contingency‖ should be adopted now to achieve additional reductions before the attainment date

. Response : EPA recently determined that Rule 4901 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion of the California SIP. See 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009). As part of that action, EPA reviewed the District‘s evaluation of av ailable controls and concluded that Rule 4901 requires implementation of Best Available Control Measures under CAA section 189(b) for particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM

- 10) in the SJV area. This conclusion was based in part on our finding that SJ V‘s 30 μg/m3 threshold for mandatory wood burning curtailment is more stringent than the 35 μg/m3 threshold adopted in other areas such as Sacramento, South Coast and Bay A rea. See SJVUAPCD, ―Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4901 ―Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters,‖ October 16, 2008, at pp. 5

- 6. Earthjustice has provided no information to support an argument that reducing the threshold for mandatory wood burning curtailment in the SJV from 30 to 20 μg/m 3 is a ―reasonably available‖ control measure, nor any information to support an argument that such a measure would, individually or in combination with other reasonable measures, advance attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by at least a year. We have, nonetheless, evaluated in the section entitled ― E valuation of potential to advance attainment ‖ belo w the additional PM emission reductions that could be achieved by implementing a mandatory wood burning cu rtailment at a 20 μg/m 3 threshold (1.6 tons per winter average day, s ee 76 FR 41338, 41358) to determine whether this measure could, in combination with other potentially reasonable measures, advance attainment in the SJV area.

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that the exemption in Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces) for furnaces that actual ly emit less than 8 tons per year of NO x or VOC ( but are located at major

source s) is ―illegal‖ because the CAA requires that RACT be implemented for all major sources

. Earthjustice states that this exemption cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day of SO x reductions and 2.9 tons per day of PM reductions. Earthjustice also states that the District had adopted a previous version of Rule 4354 that had earlier compliance deadlines than the version EPA ultimately approved into the SIP . Earthjustice asserts that the District should have removed the exemption for small furnaces at large facilities and should not have delayed compliance requirements, and that ―it is unacceptable for th e District to forego any emission reductions in the years leading up to attainment. ‖
Response : EPA recently determined that Rule 4354 satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion of the California SIP. 70 Se e 76 FR 53640 (August

70 As explain ed in our June 30, 2011 proposal to approve Rule 4692 (76 FR 38340) , the specific ozone RACT requirement in CAA section 182(b)(2) does not apply to this rule because there are no Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents for this source category and no major sources of NO x or VOC subject to this rule in the SJV area. See 76 FR 38338, 38341. We therefore interpret the commenters‘ reference to RACT as referring to the general requirement for reasonably available control measures (including RACT for station ary sources) in CAA section 172(c)(1). See 40 CFR § 51.1010.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 174 29, 2011). As part of that a ction , we determined that the VOC and NO x emission limits in Rule 4354 meet the CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) RACT requirements for major sources of VOC and NO x . The compliance schedule for NO x and VOC limit s in the SIP

- approved rule requires implementation of all technologically and economically feasible controls by January 2014. See SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, ―Proposed Amendments to Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces),‖ August 19, 2010, at pp. 10

- 12

. We conclude, therefore, that this rule implements all VOC and NO x controls that are reasonably available for this source category in the SJV. W e did
not fully evaluate in that action the stringency of the rule‘s requirements for SO x and PM 10 emissions, a s there is no specific RACT control mandate for SO x or PM 10 purposes that necessarily applies to sources covered by this rule. 71 W e disagree with Earthjustice‘s assertion that the exemption from the SO x and PM 10 limits for certain furnaces that actually emit less than 8 tpy of VOC or NO x ( See Rule 4354, section 4.3) is ― illegal ,‖ as the CAA does not establish a specific RACT control mandate for major sources of SO x or PM 10
. Under CAA section 172(c)(1), however, t he State/District is required to adopt all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet RFP requirements . 40 CFR § 51.1010. Given the need for substantial NO x and PM 2.5 emission reductions in the SJV to meet both the 1997 PM 2.5 standards and the more stringent 2006 PM 2.5 standards by the applicable attainment dates, we encourage the SJVUAPCD to reevaluate the PM 10 control requirements in Rule 4354 and to adopt, as expeditiously as practicable, any additional PM 10 and PM 2.5 control requirements that are reasonably available for implementation in the Valley. For purposes of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, additional PM control requirements for glass melting facilities may, upon SIP approval, be credited toward the District‘s remain ing enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 41338, 41354, Table 8. Earthjustice assert s that the exemption in Rule 4354 for furnaces emitting less than 8 tpy of NO x or VOC cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day of SO x reductions and 2.9 tons per day of PM reductions. For purposes of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan , the for e gone SO x emission reductions do not affect the RACM and attainment demonstration because SJV has exceeded its target level of SO x reductions needed for attainment. See 76 FR 41388, 41354, Table 8. As to PM, we have evaluated the additional emission reductions that Earthjustice claims could have been achieved from glass melting facilities 72 in our evaluation below of the potential for such additional controls, in combination with other potential control options, t o advance attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV

. See section ― Evaluation of potential to advance attainment ‖ below

.

Comment : Earthjustice states that EPA recently rejected all of the NO x emission limits in Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel

- Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters) for failing to satisfy RACT and asserts that substantial NO x reductions could be achieved if the District amended this rule to meet the stringent limits in place in other areas of the C ountry. Response : Earthjustice c orrectly notes that EPA recently disapproved all of the NO x emission limits in Rule 4352 based on our conclusion that the District had failed to adequately demonstrate that these limits satisfy CAA section 182 RACT requirements. See 75 FR 60623

71 The CAA requires implementation of RACT at any major source of NOx or VOC in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above ( See CAA 182(b)(2)(C) and 182(f)) but does not contain such a major source RACT control mandate for SO x or PM purposes.

72 For this assessment, we use Earthjustice‘s estimate of the foregone PM reductions and assume conservatively that all such PM reductions a re PM 2.5 reductions.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 175 (October 1, 2010). Earthjustice did not provide any specific information about additional control measures that are reasonably available, nor has it provided information about the amount of emissions reductions that might be achieved by such controls. We have, howeve r, developed a conservative (high) estimate of the additional NO x reductions that could be achieved under this rule if the emission limits are strengthened. We developed this estimate based on the NO x emission limits in the SIP

- approved version of Rule 4352, the emission s attributed in the 2008 PM 2.5 plan to solid fuel

- fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters in the SJV

, emissions data from existing solid fuel

- fired boilers in the SJV

, and technical information about available control op tions from EPA‘s 1994 Alternative Control Techniques Document for NO x Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers , US EPA 453/R

- 94

- 022 (1994 Boiler ACT ). Based on this information, we have conservatively estimated that more stringent control requirements for solid fuel

- fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters in SJV could achieve an additional 3.1 6 tpd of NO x reductions

. 73

Comment : Earthjustice states that EPA‘s proposal fails to address the fact that the RACM/RACT analysis ―does not include reasonable controls for condensable [PM 2.5 ] emissions‖ and contains no discussion of such controls. Earthjustice references 40 CFR § 51.1002(c) to support its assertion that ―[t]he transition period allowing agencies to ignore controls on condensable emissions ended on January 1, 2011,‖ and also quotes EPA‘s statement in the preamble to the

73 The assumptions and calculations we used to estimate th e potential additional emissions reduction from Rule 4352 are given in the table below.

Estimated 2014 Baseline NO x Emissions (tpd) Estimated Potential NO x Emission Reductions (tpd) 1 Municipal solid waste 1.46 2 0.29

- 1.29 Coal 2.30 3 1.87 Biomass 0.4 4 0.0 5

Total 4.21 6 2.16

- 3.16

Table Notes:

1 Estimated emissions reductions for MSW

- fueled and coal

- fueled units are based on reasonably achievable emissions controls as listed in Table 2

- 6 of the ICI ACT.

2 Estimated emissions based on the size of SJV‘s only MSW facility and the currently applic able emissions limits in Rule 4352.

3 Estimated total capacity of coal

- fired boilers in SJV is 1200 MMBtu/hour. Emissions are calculated by applying the currently applicable Rule 4352 emissions limits to this capacity. We note that many SJV facilities p ermitted to burn coal are also permitted to burn tire

- derived fuel (TDF) and petroleum coke and that there have been recent changes that allow some facilities to co

- fuel with biomass. The estimated emissions do not take these alternative fuels into account

. 4 Estimated by subtracting estimated emissions from MSW

- fueled and coal

- fueled units from the total 2014 solid

fuel fired boiler inventory of 4.21 tpd.

5 It is unclear that revising the NO x emission limits in Rule 4352 would result in significant emis sions reductions from SJV biomass facilities given that all of the existing biomass boilers are already achieving much lower NO x emissions consistent with Best Available Control Technology permit limits. See 75 FR 60623, 60630, Response #9

. Nonetheless, we note that biomass facilities have recently installed SCR as a control technology so further reductions might be reasonable achievable in the near future but very hard to quantify at this time. We, therefore

, have assume d no additional emissions reductions from these facilities.

6 From 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix I at p. 20.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 176 PM 2.5 i mplementation r ule (72 FR at 20652 ) tha t ―[w]e expect States to address the control of direct PM 2.5 emissions, including condensables with any new actions taken after January 1, 2011.‖ Earthjustice asserts that EPA must disapprove the RACM demonstration for failure to assess reasonably availabl e controls on condensable emissions.

Response : EPA‘s PM 2.5 implementation rule states that ―[a]fter January 1, 2011, for purposes of establishing emissions limits under 51.1009 and 51.1010, States must establish such limits taking into consideration the c ondensable fraction of direct PM 2.5 emissions.‖ 40 CFR § 51.1002(c). Prior to this date, the rule required that nonattainment area SIPs identify and evaluate sources of PM 2.5 direct emissions and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors as part of the RFP and RACM /RACT demonstrations but did not specifically require states to address condensable PM 2.5
. See id. 74 Because the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan were adopted on May 22, 2008 ( see 76 FR 41338, 41340), California was not require d to address condensable PM in establishing the emissions limits contained in these demonstrations as originally submitted, or in adopting any other PM emission limits under 40 CFR sections 51.1009 and 51.1010 prior to January 1, 2011. Consistent with thes e requirements, EPA has evaluated the RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and concluded that these elements of the Plan appropriately address all sources of direct PM 2.5 emissions and PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors (SO 2 and NO x ) in the SJV

. See 76 FR 41338

, 41343. 75

The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan relies on several rules regulating direct PM 2.5 emissions as part of the PM 2.5 control strategy ( e.g., Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling, adopted 9/17/09), Rule 4103 (Open Burning, adopted 4/15/10), Rule 435 4 (Glass Melting Furnaces, adopted 9/16/10) and Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, adopted 10/16/08)) as well as rules controlling NO x and SO x emissions. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Tables F

- 2, F

- 3, and F

- 4. Of the rules that control direct PM 2.5 emissions, only two establish emission limits for particulate matter (Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) and Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces)). EPA has not yet acted on any District rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 that regula tes direct PM 2.5 emissions. As part of our action on any such rule, we will evaluate the emission limits in the rule to ensure that they appropriately address CPM, as required by 40 CFR 51.1002(c). We note that the revised version of Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) that EPA has rece ntly proposed to approve ( see 76 FR 38340 (June 30, 2011)) requires testing in accordance with the S outh Coast Air Quality Management District (S CAQMD ) Protocol, which requires measurement of both condensable and filterable P M in accordance with SCAQMD‘s Test Method 5.1. 76 We also note that the SIP

- approved version of Rule 4354 (Glass Melting

74 See also Letter dated April 25, 2011, from Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, denying Petition for Reconsideration with respect to the deferral of the requirement to establish emission limits for condensable particulate matter (CPM) until January 1, 2011.

75 In our proposed rule, we noted that the SJVUAPCD has deferred limits for CPM in its rules but that this limited deferral does not affect the Plan‘s RACM/RACT and expeditious attainment demonstrations. See 76 FR 41338

, 41342, ft n. 12. We also note d that we would evaluate any PM 2.5 rule adopted or rev ised by the District after January 1, 2011 to assure that it appropriately addresses CPM. See id.

76 See SCAQMD Protocol, Determination of Particulate and Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Restau rant Operations, November 14, 1997 (available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/R9/R9Testmethod.nsf/0/ 3D4DEB4D21AB4AAF882570AD005DFF69/$file/SC%20Rest%20emiss.pdf) and SCAQMD Test Method 5.1, Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions from Stationary Sources Using a Wet Impingement Train , March 1989 (available at http://aqmd.gov/tao/methods/stm/stm

- 005

- 1.pdf).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 177 Furnaces) requires testing for condensable PM emissions using EPA Method 202. See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011).

Evaluation of potential to advance attainment

Table E

- 2 of our 2011 Proposal TSD indicates that to advance attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by one year, i.e., from 2014 to 2013, the area would need an additional 15.6 tpd of NO x reductions and an additional 3.9 tp d of direct PM 2.5 reductions

. These figures represent the difference between the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ and the 2014 ―NO x emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment

. ‖ See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E

- 2 (pg. 80). 77
The 2013 ―controlled inventory ‖ figur es were based on the District‘s expected emissions reductions from individual measures as identified in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. See Plan at pp. 6

- 11 and 6

- 12 (Table 6

- 3). 78 Following adoption of these measures, however, the District updated its estimates of the emission reductions associated with several of these measures. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table F

- 4 (pg. 91). Based on these updated estimates of the reductions associa ted with specific control measures, which alter the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ estimates, we have re

- calculated the amount of PM 2.5 reductions needed to advance attainment by one year as 6.4 tpd. 79
As discussed above, with respect to Rule 4692 (Charbroilin g) and Rule 4103 (Open Burning), we have concluded that the additional PM emission control options that Earthjustice identified are not reasonably available considering economic and technical feasibility. Therefore, these potential control measures are not required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the Valley. With respect to Rule 4901 (Wood Burning), Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces), and Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel

- Fired Boilers), we assume for purposes of this analysis that additional control o ptions are reasonably available for implementation in the SJV. We therefore evaluate whether the emission reductions from these additional control options would, collectively, advance attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by at least one year.

Our estimate of the total reductions of direct PM 2.5 that could be achieved by the potential control options for wood burning (1.6 tpd) and glass melting furnaces (2.9 tpd) identified by Earthjustice is 4.5 tpd. As to NO x reductions, although Earthjustice did not provide any estimate of the reductions that could be achieved by more stringent requirements for solid fuel

- fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters, we have conservatively estimated that such controls could result in an additional 3.1 2 tpd of NO x reductions from existing emission units in the SJV. These combined emission reductions (4.5 tpd of direct PM 2.5 and 3.12 tpd of NO x ) are significantly lower than the total reductions necessary to advance attainment by one year in the SJV (6.4 tpd of direct PM 2.5 and 15.6 tpd of NO x ). Therefore, even assuming that additional

77 F or NO x , 15.6 tpd represents the difference between the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ (306.8 tpd) and the 2014 ―NO x emissions level needed for PM 2.5 at tainment‖ (291.2 tpd). For PM 2.5 , 3.9 tpd represents the difference between the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ (67.2 tpd) and the 2014 ―Direct PM 2.5 emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment‖ (63.3 tpd).

78 F or example, the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ for PM 2.5 (67.2 tpd) is the sum of the expected emissions reductions from four PM 2.5 control measures identified in Table F

- 2. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E

- 2 (pg. 87).

79 The updates to the PM 2.5 emission reduction estimates reduced the creditable reducti ons from 6.7 tpd to 4.2 tpd, which in turn increased the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ from 67.2 tpd to 69.7 tpd. 6.4 tpd is the difference between the updated 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ (69.7 tpd) and the 2014 ―Direct PM 2.5 emissions level needed for PM 2.5 attainment‖ (63.3 tpd).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 178 control options for these three source categories are reasonably available for implementation in the SJV, they are not required RACM for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards because they would not advance the attainment date in SJV by at least one year. See 40 CFR § 51.1010(b).

Conclusion on RACM demonstration For all of these reasons and as discussed in our proposed rule (76 FR 41338) and 2011 Proposal TSD , we conclude that the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan includes all RACM (including RACT for stationary sources) necessary for RFP and expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV and, therefore, satisfies the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.1010.

Comm ent : Earthjustice list s a number of District rules ( Rule 4352 (Solid Fuel

- Fired Boilers), Rule 4402 (Crude Oil Production Sumps), Rule 4624 (Wastewater Separators), and Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) ) that EPA has recently disapproved or partially disapproved as not meeting RACT and also lists a number of other District rules ( Flares, Wine Fermentation, and Bi o solids ) that EPA had not acted on. It then argues the inadequacies in these rules, including the rules that cover sources of VOC, must be co rrected before EPA can approve the District‘s RACM/RACT demonstration. Response : All but two of the rules (Solid

- Fuel

- Fired Boilers and Flares) that Earthjustice lists are VOC rules. As discussed above, VOC is not an attainment plan precursor for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV and therefore do es not need to be addressed in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP‘s RACM demonstration. As discussed above, we have evaluated whether more stringent requirements on solid fuel

- fired boilers, when considered with other reasonable available measures, would advance attainment of the PM 2.5 standards in SJV and have concluded they would not. EPA has recently proposed to fin d that SJVAPCD‘s revised flare rule, Rule 4311, meets CAA section 182(b)(2) RACT requirements. See 76 FR 52623 (August 23, 2011). SJVAPCD did not estimate the potential NO x reductions from the revisions to Rule 4311. The total estimated emissions from flares subject to the rule are 0.4 tpd. See SJVUAPCD, ―Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rul e 4311 (Flares),‖ June 18, 2009, pp. 25

- 26.

Comment : Earthjustice states that the District evaluated just twenty

- four of its rules for the RACM/RACT demonstration (citing Appendix I of the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan) and identified thirteen rules. It states that EPA has approved only six into the SIP. Response : The District evaluated most of its rules that control particulate matter, SO x , or NO x as part of its evaluation of potential controls for the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix I. We note that the District completed a comprehensive review of its NO x rules as part of its 2007 Ozone Plan which was adopted one year prior to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and also undertook a comprehensive review of these rules for its 2006 Ozone RACT SIP required by CAA section 1 82(b)(2) and (f) which was adopted 2 years prior to the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. See Appendices H and I of that 2007 Ozone Plan. The great majority of the District‘s rule s control VOC from sources that only emit VOC

. See Appendix B of this TSD. EPA has found that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor for purposes of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. See section II.C. of this TSD. As a result of this finding, VOC controls are not needed in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP.

Of the thirteen District control measures that it committed to adopt , one is not schedule d for adoption until 201 4 (revisions to Rule 4905

– gas residential furnaces), one was just adoptedTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 179 in August 2011 and has not yet been submitted for EPA‘s review (Rule 4702

– internal combustion engines), an d one EPA expects to take action on in the next few months (Rule 9410

– employer trip reduction). The ten remaining rules have all been approved or proposed for approval

. See Table F

- 3 in this TSD.

Comment : In its January 31, 2011 letter, Earthjustice comments that the District‘s revised plan must explain why available measures have not been included in the RACM/RACT demonstration and have not been offered to advance attainment. Earthjustice notes that EPA
po ints out
, in its discussion of the contingency provisions, this requirement for the boilers and internal combustion engine rules (Rules 4307 and 4702), but ignores this same problem in the District‘s decision to forgo more aggressive wood burning requireme nts. Response : We note that both Rule 4307 and 4702 were considered part of the District‘s initial control strategy ( See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6

- 2 ); however, reductions from the rules were not determined at the time of the Plan‘s submittal and therefore not included either the RFP or the attainment demonstration. See 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Table 6

- 3. In its 2010 proposal, EPA was proposing to disapprove both of these demonstrations based

, in part

, on insufficient emissions reductions. See 7 5 FR 74518, 74539. G iven that these two rules were part of control strategy, EPA believed that reductions from these measures should be credited to the RFP and attainment demonstrations first and not withheld for contingency purposes. EPA was not suggesting that these measure s would provide for more expeditious attainment since they were already part of the control strategy

. These rules have now been adopted and reductions from Rule 4307 have been incorporated into both the RFP and attainment demonstrations. See Table F

- 4 of this TSD . Rule 4702 was adopted in August 2011 and has compliance dates as early as 2014. The reductions from this rule in 2014 will contribute toward fulfilling the District‘s outstanding emissions reductions commitments. The contingency provision in Rul e 4103 was not part of the initial control strategy and is will only be triggered should the area fail to attain by April 5 , 2015. We discussed above whether this rule ‘s contingency provision is RACM for the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV

.



### F. Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

1. Baseline Measures

Comment : Earthjustice and AIR assert that the baseline inventories are flawed because they include emissions reduction credit from both ―waiver measures‖ and ―non

- waiver measures‖ adopted before December 2006 (together referred to as ―baseline measures‖) that have not been approved into the SIP, and that the inclusion of credit for these baseline measures undermines the attainment and progress demonstrations attached to these inventories. For exam ple, both commenters object to the inclusion of credit for CARB‘s anti

- idling requirements in the baseline inventories because these requirements have never been submitted for SIP approval, and Earthjustice suggests that EPA should have adjusted the credit for these anti

- idling requirements based on CARB‘s failure to enforce them. Both commenters assert that EPA has not specifically evaluated these baseline measures to determine how they should be credited in the baseline inventories, and Earthjustice asser ts that the measures upon which the attainment and progressTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 180 demonstrations rely must be enforceable, creditable controls approved into the SIP subject to the CAA‘s anti

- backsliding provisions. In addition, based on information provided in Table 7 of the 2 011 Proposal and tables F

- 7 and F

- 9 of the 2011 Proposal TSD, AIR provides its own calculations of the total amount of emission reduction credits attributed to baseline measures and requests that EPA confirm the accuracy of AIR ‘s calculations. Finally, AI R asserts that these additional ―non

- waiver‖ baseline measures should also be SIP

- approved: Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash (adopted March 27, 2004);

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005); Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003); Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adopted May 26, 2006);

Pesticides

– Field Fumigant Limits (submitted to EPA October 12, 2009). Response : We disagree that there is any inadequacy in the emissions projections that undermines the RACM, RFP or attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. We explained in our 2011 proposal (76 FR 41338

, 41342, 41343) our reasons for co ncluding both that the 2005 base year inventory in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan is comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 172(c)(3 ) and that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and 2014 provide adequate bas e s for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. With respect to mobile source emissions, w e believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the California SIP. In the TSD supporting our 2011 pro posal, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i

. Historical ly, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) e xpanded the flexibility granted to California in order ― to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its c itizens and the public welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)) . In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA ha s always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

- vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions est imates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

- related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- established emissions standards. (EmissionsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 181 reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as M OVES

. 80 ) The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan was de veloped using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ a nd that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MO VES model. All oth er states use the MOVES model (and prior to release of MOVES, the MOBILE model) in their baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation into their SIPs. Similarly, emissions reductions that are from Califor nia‘s waiver measures for non

- road engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off

- road recreation equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‘s OFFROAD emissions factor model. 81 ( Emissions reductions from EPA‘s non

- road eng ine and vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California non

- road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California non

road standards similarly to the Federal non

- road standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs. See generally 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i. CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory actions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7

- 8. For stationary sources, the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future emissions from stat ionary and area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory. 82 See id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the projected inventories for both stationary and mobile sources into a single database to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. See id. In 2011, CA RB updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories

. See 2011 Progress Report at Appendix E. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See 2011 Pr oposal TSD at section II.A; see also

80 MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA‘s on

- road mobile source emission estimation model for use in SIPs and conformity in 2010.

81 Information about CARB‘s emissions inventories for on

- road and non

- road mobile sources, and the EMFAC and OFFROAD models used to project changes in future inventories, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.

82 I nformation on base year emissions from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the d istricts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from various area source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 182 ―Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA

- 450/4

- 91

- 019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X , December 1999 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf)

. In sum, the 2005 base year and future projected baseline inventories in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan were prepared using a complex set of CARB methodologies to estimate and project emissions from stationary sources, in addition to the most recent emissions factors and models and updated activity levels for emissions associated with mobile sources, including: (1) the latest EPA

- approved California motor vehicle emissions fact or model (EMFAC2007) and the most recent motor vehicle activity data from each of the MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley ; (2) improved methodolog ies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3) CARB's non

- road mobile source model (the OFFR OAD model)

. See TSD at s ection II.A

. (referencing, inter alia

, 2007 State Strategy at Appendix F) and 2011 Progress Report. EPA has approved numerous California SIPs that rely on base year and projected baseline inventories including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC

, OFFROAD , and CEFS models. See,
e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000 ) (proposed rule to approve 1

- hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 43663 (July 28, 2005) (proposed rule to approve PM

- 10 plan for South Coast and Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay). The commenter has provided no information to support a claim that th ese methodologies for developing base year inventories and projecting future emissions in the SJV are inadequate to support the RACM, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan.

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our 2011 proposal (76 FR 41338

, 41342, 41343), we have concluded that the 2005 base year inventory in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan is a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants‖ in the SJV area, consiste nt with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA section 172(c)(3), 40 CFR § 51.1008, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude that the projected baseline inventories for 2009, 2012 and 2014 were prepared consistent with EPA‘s guida nce on development of emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.A.

As to the six specific baseline measures that CRPE asserts should be SIP

- approved, we note first that the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP does not rely on credit for emission reductions from the Pesticides regulations (Field Fumigant Limits) as those regulations do not apply to any pollutant that is a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV (PM 2.5 , NO x , or SO 2 ).
Second, both the Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks (effective November 15, 2006) 83 and the Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment measure

83 EPA is currently reviewing a request from CARB for a determination as to whether certain requirements of these anti

- idling rules are preempted by sections 209(a) of the CAA; certain provisions are conditions precedent pursuant to section 209(a) of the Act; certain provisions are within

- the

- scope of previous waivers and authorizations issued pu rsuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, resp ectively; and at least one provision requires and merits a full authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. See 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the operational requirement of th e anti

- idling rule, which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, achieves 0.2 tpd of NO x in the SJV. See Memorandum , Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2); to San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 183 (adopted May 26, 2006) are pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA section 209 (b) or section 209(e). 84 We expect that EPA will act on these requests for waivers of preemption or authorization under CAA section 209 in the near term, and that our final approval o f the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan based in part on its reliance on the emissions reductions associated with these rules is, therefore, reasonable and appropriate. If, however, EPA either denies or does not issue the State‘s requested waiver for any of these measures p rior to the effective date of today‘s action, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.
Third, as to the Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Du ty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utiliti es ( adopted December 8, 2005) , CARB‘s staff report on this measure indicates that the projected baseline inventories have attributed emission reductions of 0.1 tpd PM 2.5 and 0.18 tpd NO x statewide to this measure. Se e Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities, October 2005, at pg. 55. A ssuming less than 25 percent of these reductions are attributed to the SJV area, the de minimis amounts of emission reductions attributed to this measure in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP do not affect our evaluation of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. Similarly, as to th e Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003)

, CARB‘s staff report on this measure indicates that the projected baseline inventories have attributed emission reductions of 0.17 tpd PM 2.5 and 2.3 tpd NO x statewide to this measure

. See S upplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at pg. 18. Assuming less than 25 percent of these reductions are attributed to t he SJV area, the de minimis amounts of emission reductions attributed to this measure in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP also do not affect our evaluation of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. Finally, the Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash rule (adopted March 27, 2004) (―Chip Reflash‖ rule) w as intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB‘s NO x emission standard for heavy

- duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring in stallation of "Low

- NO x Software

. " The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in part by a California State C ourt , and CARB repealed the related regulations in June 2007. The emission reduction credit attributed to Chip Reflash in CARB‘s baseline inventories is limited to vehicles that have b een ―reflashed,‖ i.e., physically installed the Low

- NO x Software, 85 removal of which would constitute a violation of

Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516 ―South Coast and San Joa quin Valley Emissions Reductions from ARB‘s Operational Idling Requirements, ― September 28, 2011

.

84 See letter , James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: Request for Authorization Determination Pursuant to Cle an Air Act Section 209(e) for Amendments to California‘s Off

- Road Emissions Standards Regulation for large Spark

- Ignition (LSI) Engines and Fleet Requirement for In

- Use LSI Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment and California State Motor Vehicle and Non road Engine Pollution Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment; Notice Of Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010)

85 The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, ―Emission Inventory Output Tables‖ documents the adjustment in the baseline that CARB made to account for Chip Reflash (or Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Software Upgrade). As described in appendix A, CARB staff estimates t hat the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NO x emissions reductions statewide in year 2007. CARB also indicates that it took into account the fact that the software upgrade reg ulation had been invalidated by including no additional emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had already occurred due toTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 184 the CAA and/or California state law. See the statutory anti

- tampering laws in CAA section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle Code section 2715 6. Thus, t he NO x emissions reductions attributed to ―reflashed‖ engines are enforceable under the CAA and/or California state law.
As to AIR‘s calculation o f the reductions from baseline measures, AIR calculates what it considers ―the total reductions from baseline reductions without recession reductions‖ to be 11 tpd of PM 2.5 , 195 tpd of NO x , and 0.9 tpd of SO x . These figures are not correct because they do not take into account CARB‘s recent updates to the projected 2014 inventory.

For the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, ―baseline reductions‖ are calculated by subtracting the 2005 base year inventory form the projected 2014 pre

- control

- strategy inventory. As we have discussed above, CARB revised its projected 2014 inventories to incorporate not only the continuing ef fects of the recent economic recession but also many non

- recession related changes. These revisions have resulted in a more accurate projected 2014 inventory. As we have discussed previously, projected emissions inventories are a function in part of chang es in activity. Projected inventories are, therefore, necessarily affected by forecasts of industrial growth, population growth, and transportation growth, among other factors. EPA guidance emphasizes the importance of developing reliable methods for estim ating future source activity levels as part of the SIP planning process. We believe that CARB has done this.

2. Waiver Measures

Comment : Earthjustice and AIR object to our proposal to grant emissions reduction credit to California‘s mobile source contro l measures that have received a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209 without first approving them into the SIP. Both commenters argue that our reliance for this proposal on the general savings clause in CAA section 193 is inappropriate for several re asons. First, the commenters assert that CAA section 193 only saves those ―formal rules, notices, or guidance documents‖ that are not inconsistent with the CAA. They argue that both the CAA and EPA‘s long

- standing policies and regulations require SIPs to c ontain the state and local emission limitations and control measures that are necessary for attainment and RFP and to meet other CAA requirements. They assert that our position on the treatment of California‘s waived measures is inconsistent with this requ irement. AIR asserts that EPA has, in contrast, approved other (non

- mobile source) state measures into the SIP, e.g., the consumer products rules and fuel standards. Earthjustice also argues that only SIP approval provides for the CAA‘s enforcement oversig ht (CAA sections 179 and 304) and anti

- backsliding (CAA section 110(l) and 193) safeguards. Second, the commenters argue that we cannot claim that our position was ratified by Congress because section 193 saves only regulations, standards, rules, notices, orders and guidance ―promulgated or issued‖ by the Administrator and we have not identified documents

compliance with the regulation (prior to invalidation by the court), voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine rebuilds, engines upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks. C ARB staff recently confirmed that the baseline adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State Strategy reflects emission reduction credit only for engines that have been ―reflashed.‖ See Memorandum , Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2); to the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516, ―SIP Credit for Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Low

- NO x Software (―Chip Reflash‖)‖; September 28, 2011.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 185 promulgated or issued by EPA that establish our position here. Earthjustice further asserts that our interpretation has not been expressed through any aff irmative statements and the only statements of relevant statutory interpretations are contrary to our position on California‘s waived measures. Third, Earthjustice argues that there is no automatic presumption that Congress is aware of an agency‘s interpre tations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware of our interpretation regarding the SIP treatment of California‘s mobile source control measures. Similarly, CRPE argues that our positions that Congress must expressly disapprove of EPA ‘s long

- standing interpretation and Congressional silence equates to a ratification of EPA‘s interpretation are incorrect. Finally, AIR argues that waiver measures may not be used in attainment demonstrations because EPA makes no finding during the waiver process that the rules achieve the reductions claimed or that the measures are SIP creditable. AIR also notes that these issues are the subject of litigation in the 9 th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA , Consolidated Case Nos. 10

- 71457 an d 10

- 71458. Response : We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rule s are not approved as part of the California SIP. In our 2011 proposal and 2011 Proposal TSD, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See 76 FR 41338

, 41345 and 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i. Historically, EPA has granted credit f

or the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility gran ted to California in order "to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare," (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. As we explained in the 2011 Proposal TSD(pp. 100

- 102), credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SI P, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marke table permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiab le without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantif iability, that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 186 First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)

. See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measure s

. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193

. 86 Meanwhile, the growing convergence betwe en California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State
program

. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program. Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program i s equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA
program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile source enforc ement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are

no t in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification

. As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- es tablished emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehic le standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOVES.) T he EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for vehicle deterioration and many other factors

. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan ( See 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983 ) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for

86 In addition, the commenters' concerns over the potential for relaxation by the State of the waiver measures because the underlying regulations are not subject to EPA review and approval as a SIP revision are not a practical concern for this particular plan g iven that the plan's horizon is very short term (next couple of years), and the on

- road and nonroad vehicles that in part will determine whether the area attains the standard are already in operation or in dealer showrooms. There is no practical means for the State to relax the standards of vehicles already manufactured, even if the State wanted to relax the standards.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 187 the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. 87 T he San Joaquin Valley plan was developed using a version of the EMFA C model referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use o f EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOBILE model.
Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approva l process is analogous to the SIP approval
process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request

. When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. Once again, in substance, the process is simila r to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as SIP revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. In the 2011 Proposal TSD (pp. 102

- 103) , we indicated that we believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

standing pr actice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any languag e into the statute rendering EPA's treatment of California's motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional in tent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is no t consistent with providing California with

87 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the underlying rules in the SI P 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 i ncluding 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 r evision 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 waiv er measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portion s of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 188 the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus woul d not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California's mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. In summary, we disagree that our interpretation of CAA s ection 193 is fundamentally flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver measures in our approval of attainment demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies our long

- standing practice of allowing credit for California's waiver measures notwithstanding the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in the development and promulgation of on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards. 88

AIR correctly notes that EPA‘s treatment of California waiver measures in SIP actions is the subject of current litigation in Si erra Club v. EPA , Consolidated Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458 (9 th Circuit).

2 . Enforceable Commitments

Comment : AIR argues that EPA cannot make a finding that the ―recession reductions‖ are an ―enforceable‖ measure within the meaning of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) because ―recession reductions‖ are only voluntary behavior to reduce activity for economi c reasons and nothing prevents such an increase in activity as the economy improves. Based on this argument, AIR asserts that EPA‘s approval of the attainment demonstration is arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with the law. AIR asserts that CA RB concedes that the reductions coming from reduced activity may change in the future. Response : EPA is not making a finding that emission ―reductions‖ related to the economic recession are ―enforceable‖ measures under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c )(6). As explained in our amended proposal (76 FR 41338

, 41354

- 41356), we are concluding that CARB‘s 2011 SIP revisions, which updated the State‘s projected (―baseline‖) emissions inventories based on improved methodologies for estimating emissions and mor e recent growth factors, reduced the total amount of emission reductions needed for attainment and that the control strategy in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, as revised in 2011, demonstrates expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV from the revised baseline

. Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that each implementation plan submitted by a State include ―enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques... as well as schedules and timetables for com pliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of [the CAA].‖ Section 172(c)(6) contains substantively identical requirements for all nonattainment area plans. Baseline emissions

88 In this regard, we disagree that we are treating the waiver measures inconsistently with other California control measures, such as consumer products and fuels rules, for the simple reason that, unlike the waiver measures, there is no history of past practice or legislative history supporting treatment of other California measures, such as consumer products rules and fuels rules, in an y manner differently than is required as a general rule under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local measures that are relied upon for SIP purposes must be approved into the SIP.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 189 inventories, however, are not ―enforceable e mission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques‖ or ―schedules and timetables for compliance‖ that are necessary or appropriate to meet CAA requirements. See El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir . 2008) (concluding that a baseline inventory is not an enforceable ―standard or limitation‖ as defined by the CAA and is not, therefore, an independently enforceable aspect[] of the SIP‖). Rather, baseline emissions inventories provide the basis for, amon g other things, the demonstrations of attainment and progress toward attainment required by CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(2). Specifically, CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each plan for a nonattainment area include ―a comprehensive, accurate,

curre nt inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area...‖). After developing this ―base year‖ emissions inventory, States use modeling and other analyses to calculate future emissions projections and ―target‖ emission levels, which then inform the State‘s development of progress milestones and control strategies for attaining the NAAQS. See General Preamble at 13507

- 13510. In short, emissions inventories provide estimates of current and future emissions that, i n turn, provide the starting point for the State‘s attainment demonstration and enforceable control strategy. Nothing in the CAA precludes a State from revising a submitted plan to take into account revised emissions estimates and projections. All project ions of future emissions

- generating activity (including the original projections in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan that AIR would have CARB and EPA continue to use) are based on projections of population and employment and other growth factors that reflect voluntary behavior, all of which can increase or decrease as economic conditions change. However, reliance on projections from reputable sources of economic behavior based on established methods of predicting such behavior is the historic practice for development of emissions inventories. CARB‘s revised projections of future emissions

generating activity are based on reputable sources, represent the most current understanding of expected economic conditions through at least 2014, and were subject to extensive public review and comment before CARB adopted its 2011 SIP revisions containing these updated projections. Given the magnitude of the economic recession‘s impact on emissions

- generating activity in SJV and other parts of California, and the resulting impact on th e State‘s assessment of the control strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards, we conclude that it is appropriate to take these updated emissions projections into account as part of our action on the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. Other th an asserting generally that CARB and EPA should not rely on the revised economic data to determine the reductions needed for attainment and that future conditions may change, AIR provides no information that undermine s the State‘s revised economic data or the related changes to the projected inventories. We disagree with AIR‘s unsupported assertion that ―CARB concedes that the reductions coming from reduced activity may change in the future.‖ CARB has stated that it will continue to track emission trends t o ensure that the 2014 emission targets are met and maintains its commitment to adopt and implement additional control requirements, incentive programs, or other measures as appropriate to reduce emissions to the levels necessary to attain. See 2011 Progre ss Report, p. 4. Moreover, as discussed above, the revisions to the 2014 baseline inventory that AIR characterizes as ―recession reductions‖ took into account not only the State‘s revised economic forecasts but numerous other factors, including updated act ivity data and growth projections. See section I I I.B

. (―Emissions Inventory‖) above.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 190 Comment : AIR asserts that the Plan relies on emission reductions caused by the recent economic recession to demonstrate attainment, rather than requiring reductions from diesel trucks and other diesel equipment in 2014. Noting CARB‘s recent revisions to five of its in

- use rules, 89 AIR argues that these rule revisions ―reduc[ed] the amount of reductions that those five in

- use rules would have achieved by 2014,‖ and that CAR B has equated recession

- related emission reductions with the reductions necessary to meet the 2014 tonnage targets. AIR asserts that the difference between the pre

- recession and recession inventories in the Valley is 40 tons per day of NO x . Response : As discussed above, CARB‘s revisions to the 2014 baseline inventories took into account not only the State‘s revised economic forecasts but numerous other factors, including updated activity data and growth projections. See section I I I.B

. (―Emissions Inventor y‖) above. These improvements to the emissions estimates reduced the projected 2014 emissions levels for trucks, buses and certain off

- road equipment compared to the levels expected when CARB initially adopted its rules for these sources in 2007 and 2008. These revised projections, in turn, reduced the State‘s assessment of the amount of emission reductions needed from these emission sources to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and allowed CARB to provide some economic relief to the affected industries. 90 We note that because EPA has not previously approved California‘s in

- use truck rules into the SIP, EPA‘s approval of these rules strengthens the SIP and meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l). See CAA 110(l) (prohibiting EPA fro m approving a revision of a plan ―if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act]‖).

The revised Truck rule and the revised Off

- Roa d rule continue to require reductions from diesel trucks and other diesel equipment in 2014 and future years. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 45 and 2010 Off

- Road ISOR, p. 38; See also, 76 FR 41338, 41346 (Table 6).

Comment : AIR claims that the 2011 Progress Report shows CARB considers ―recession reductions‖ as a part of its ―global‖ emission reduction commitment. In support of this claim, AIR quotes the 2011 Progress Report at page 4:
As a result of the recession, actual emission decreases moved California closer to the emissions levels needed for attainment in 2014. The recession has reduced economic activity and emissions, most notably in the goods movement sector. This has allowed ARB to maintain the State‘s SIP commitm ents in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley while also providing some near

- term economic relief to affected industries.

89 These five in

- use rules are CARB‘s Truck rule, Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Regulation, In

- Use On

- Road Diesel

- Fueled Heavy

- Duty Drayage Trucks Regulation, Off

- Road rule, and LSI regulation (collective ―in

- use rules‖).

90 To determine the extent to which it could revise its in

- use rules to provide economic relief and still meet the attainment target, CARB evaluated whether the lower emissions from the revised inventories for both trucks, buses and off

- road equipment, when combined with the effects of the recession, provided greater emissions reduct ions from the in

- use rules than were initially expected. CARB referred to these greater

- than

- expected emissions reductions as the ―emission margin.‖ Because the in

- use diesel rules reduced both direct PM 2.5 and NO x and both pollutants contribute to ambient levels of PM 2.5 , CARB calculated the margin on a ―NOx equivalent‖ basis and found that the margin for the SJV was 40 tpd of NO x equivalents. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 23.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 191 As the economy recovers, ARB will continue to track emission trends to ensure the 2014 emission targets are met. If future emissions were to exceed the SIP target, the State‘s commitment could be made up with additional controls, incentive programs, or other programs to bring emissions down to the necessary levels. A discussion of how ARB accounted for the recession is found later in th is report. Response : EPA is not treating any ―recession reductions‖ as part of the State‘s enforceable commitments. As explained above, we are approving the attainment demonstration and control strategy in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan based on our conclusion that the Plan, as revised by CARB‘s 2011 revisions to the projected baseline inventories, demonstrates expeditious attainment of the PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. EPA interprets the quoted language as a statement of CARB‘s future plans to revise the SIP as necess ary should economic activity change significantly in the future.

Comment : AIR claims that in proposing to disapprove the CARB‘s global commitment in November 2010, EPA recognized that the Truck rule could reduce that percentage of reductions remaining as commitments below 10 percent. It then asserts that EPA cannot now approve the commitment and the attainment demonstration because CARB‘s relaxation of the Truck rule and the Off

- Road rule to delay reductions beyond 2014 mean that the percentages of PM 2.5 a nd NO x reductions needed for attainment that remain as commitments are still well above the 10 percent threshold. AIR states that based on its calculations, the percentage of total reductions remaining as commitments, if adjustments to the baseline are not included, would be 25.1 percent for PM 2.5 and 26.7 percent for NO x . Response : EPA did not propose to disapprove CARB‘s aggregate commitment s in its 2010 proposal. We proposed then and again in our 2011 proposal to approve CARB‘s aggregate emissions reduc tions commitments as described in CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B

. See 75 FR 74518

, 74541 and 7 6 FR 41338

, 41361. EPA did initially propose t o disapprove the attainment demonstration based in part on our finding that the percentage of the emissions red uctions needed for attainment that remained as commitments was too high

. See 75 FR 74518, 74541. As explained in our 2011 proposal, however, additional submittals from CARB have reduced the percentages of emissions reductions remaining as commitments to 13 .2 percent for direct PM 2.5 and 4.5 percent for NO x . These percentages are reasonably close to the 10 percent
range that EPA has historically accepted as appropriate for enforceable commitments in approving attainment demonstrations. See 76 FR 41338, 41355

- 41356 . Because the State‘s revisions to the projected baseline inventories in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP have reduced the total tonnage of emission reductions necessary to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards ( see section III.B. above), we disagree with AIR‘s calc ulation of the percentage of total reductions remaining as commitments.

Comment : Earthjustice comments that EPA has outlined a three

- factor test to assess whether the commitments in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP are reasonable but has not documented, under the f irst factor, how we determine the level of remaining reductions and what is meant by ―reasonably close.‖
Response : In our 2011 propos al we provide a detailed discussion of the emissions reductions needed for attainment and how they have been or will be ac hieved. See generally 76 FR 4133 8

, 41344

- 41347 and 41354

- 41357 and 2011 Proposal TSD, sections II.F. and G. Th ese reductionsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 192 include those from measures adopted prior to 2007 ( baseline measures), measures adopted since 2007 and measures that are yet to be adopted ( i.e., enforceable commitments)

. The expected reductions from each of these sets of measures are provided in the 2011 propos al, as are EPA‘s calculation s of the percentages of needed reductions remaining as commitments

. See 76 FR 4133 8

, 413 54, Table 8 ; see also 2011 Proposal TSD at pp. 105

- 106 and 11 3

- 114 . As provided in the tables in our 2011 proposal and 2011 Proposal TSD, the reductions remaining as commitments are 12.9 tpd of NO x and 3.0 tpd of PM 2.5
. Id. These reductions represent 4.5
p ercent and 13.2 percent of the total NO x and PM 2.5 emissions reductions (respectively) needed for attainment. Id. In support of our statement that these percentages ( 4.5 percent of NO x and 13.2 percent of PM 2.5 ) are ―reasonably close to the 10 percent ran ge that EPA has historically accepted in approving attainment demonstration s,‖ we referenced several prior EPA approvals of SIPs relying on similar enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 4133 8, 4135 5 and n. 30. We also explained our legal rationale for approvi ng such enforceable commitments and referenced several court decisions that support our interpretation of the CAA. See id. at n. 27 and 28. Based on our evaluations, we proposed to allow the State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM 2.5 Pl an and 2007 State Strategy

. Id. at 41356. Earthjustice does not explain why these explanations were not adequate or why reliance on enforceable commitments consistent with these court cases is inapp ropriate.

Comment : Earthjustice comments that it is not reasonable to approve a ―plan to make a plan,‖ which is what they believe the District and CARB have provided. Earthjustice states that the District and CARB are asking EPA to trust them that they wil l find emission reductions needed to meet the standards by 2015. Earthjustice states that this is not what the CAA contemplates, citing section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA (requiring plans to include ―enforceable emission limitations and other control measures ... necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act‖)

. Earthjustice states that there is no point in having a plan which does not specifically identify how it plans to accomplish the needed reductions. Response : We disagree with Earthjustice‘s assertion that the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP does not identify how CARB and the SJVUAPCD plan to accomplish the reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by 2015. As discussed in our amended proposal , the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan relies principally on adopted measures approved into the SIP or given waivers under CAA section 209 to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV by April 5, 2015, including baseline (pre

- 2007) measures that conti nue to achieve emission reductions through 2014. See 76 FR 41338, 41356. The balance of the needed reductions is currently in the form of enforceable commitments that account for 13.2 percent of the direct PM 2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NO x emission reductio ns needed from 2005 levels to attain. See id. These SIP

- approved or CAA

- waived control measures and enforceable commitments satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) to include ―enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means o r techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements‖ of the CAA. See id. at 41355, n. 27. Although CARB‘s and the District ‘s enforceable commitments to achieve additi onal emission reductions are expressed in aggregate tonnages and not tied to specific measures, both CARB and the District have provided a list of potential measures that may achieve th e additional reductions needed to attain the standards, together with expeditious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules consistent with EPA‘s policy onTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 193 acceptable enforceable commitments

. See id. at 41355, 41356. Both CARB and the District have also made signi ficant progress to date in meeting their enforceable commitments. Id.

Comment : A IR notes that one of EPA‘s criteria for evaluating an attainment demonstration that relies on commitments is whether the state is capable of fulfilling the commitment. AIR ar gues that CARB is not capable of fulfilling its commitment given CARB‘s alleged use of ―recession reductions‖ instead of actual measures to meet its commitment when diesel emissions can change based on economic forces that the State cannot control. It also claims that CARB‘s decision to revise its five in

- use rules is evidence that CARB can and likely will amend rules in the future that may undermine its commitment. Response : We disagree with AIR‘s assertion that CARB‘s revisions to the in

- use rules or to its projected emissions levels based on updated economic forecasts undermine its commitments or demonstrate that the State is not capable of fulfilling its commitment. We discussed above in section III.B. our reasons for concluding that the revisions to th e 2014 baseline emissions inventories are legitimate. Contrary to AIR ‘s assertions, CARB‘s rulemaking record for the revisions to its in

- use rules indicate that the State intends to ensure that any future revisions to the rules will not undermine its SIP commitment. See , e.g., 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 2 and 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR, p. 2 (stating that rule revisions should ―continue progress toward cleaner air‖ and ―meet state implementation plan (SIP) commitments‖) . Before revising its in

- use rule s , CARB

c alculated the maximum level of relief it could provide without violating it SIP commitment. This ―SIP margin‖ was calculated as 40 tpd in NO x equivalent (a weighted combination of NO x and PM 2.5 emissions) in the SJV. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 23 and 201 0 Off

- Road Rule ISOR, p. 20. The revisions to the in

- use rule s did not decrease their combined benefits by more this amount. 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 51 and 2010 Off

- Road Rule ISOR, p. 43. Thus, CARB‘s actions did not reflect any lack of intention to fully meet its enforceable commitments to provide emissions reductions sufficient for timely attainment.

Comment : E arthju stice also contends that the second factor for determining whether to approve an attainment demonstration that relies on commitments, whether the state is capable of meeting its commitment, is not met because CARB has repeatedly fallen short of achieving its estimated emission s reduction from its rules and has not begun to develop its Ag ricultural Equipment Rule which was to achieve 5 to 10 tons per day of NO x in the SJV and be adopted by 2009. To support its argument, it points to the methodology changes associated with the Truck rule and Off

- Road Rule and the ―massive recession reductions ‖ that have resulted in fewer reductions being ne eded from these rules

. E arthjustice concludes that it does not believe that CARB is capable of meeting the ―massive, last

- minute commitments‖ relied upon in the Plan given CARB‘s history of avoiding satisfying its commitments . It also argues that CARB cann ot rely on changes to the inventory to lessen the reductions from its rules without reassessing the relationship between emissions and ambient concentrations of fine particulates and that the ― massive recession reductions ‖ are neither permanent nor enforce able. Response : We d isagree with Earthjustice‘s assertion that CARB has a history of not satisfying its commitments or that the State‘s recent revisions to its future emissions projections indicate it is not capable of meeting its commitments. We discuss ed above in section III.B. our reasons for concluding that the revisions to the 2014 baseline emissions inventories are valid. We also noteTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 194 that Earthjustice has provided no information or data to undermine CARB‘s revisions to its future emissions projecti ons based on its revised economic forecasts and updated methodologies for estimating emissions. In addition, Earthjustice‘s assertion that CARB‘s actions with respect to regulation of in

use agricultural equipment indicate it will not meet its enforceable commitment is unsupported. CARB recently adopted changes to its rulemaking schedule to establish an adoption date of 2013 for regulation of in

- use agricultural equipment. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p . 3. The 2007 State Strategy indicates that this measu re is expected to achieve 5 to 10 tpd NO x reductions in 2017, well after the period covered by the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 16. CARB did not quantify any emissions reductions for this measure for 2014. See id. at 18. The f

act that the State revised its adoption schedule for a measure that is not relied on for attainment or RFP in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP d oes not establish that the State is generally incapable of meeting its enforceable commitments in that SIP. As discussed i n the 2011 proposal and its TSD and in our response to comments on the air quality modeling above in section III.C., EPA has concluded as a technical matter that the revisions to the base year inventory are not significant enough to change the basic conclusions drawn from the air quality modeling or to warrant a new air quality modeling assessment at this time. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.B.

Comment : Earthjusti ce states that CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) require SIPs to contain ―enforceable limitations...as may be necessary or appropriate‖ to achieve attainment. Earthjustice further states that, while section 110(k)(4) allows EPA to grant ―conditional approval‖ of a SIP lacking certain statutory elements ―based on a commitment of the state to adopt specific enforceable measures‖ by a date certain , the statute provides that the conditional approval automatically becomes a disapproval if the state fails to comply with the commitment within one year . Earthjustice then claims that EPA appears to be trying to avoid th is limitation by treating open

- ended promises of the State to reduce emissions as enforceable commitments even though the State has never specified exactly what it commits to do . Earthjust ice states that courts have rejected similar attempts to circumvent the statute‘s limitations on conditional approval and cites Sierra Club v. EPA , 356 F.3d 296, 298(D.C. Cir. 2004) as overturning EPA‘s conditional approval of SIPs based in part on the fac t that the commitments identified no specific measures the state would implement. Response : As pertinent to the comment, Sierra Club involved EPA‘s conditional approval under section 110(k)(4) of SIPs lacking in their entirety RACM and rate

- of

- progress ( R OP ) demonstrations and contingency measures based on letters submitted by states that committed to cure these deficiencies. The court rejected EPA‘s construction of section 110(k)(4) as contrary to the unambiguous statutory language requiring the state to commit to adopt specific enforceable

measures. See Sierra Club at 302. The court found that EPA‘s construction turned the section 110(k)(4) conditional approval into a means of circumventing SIP deadlines. Id. a t 303. EPA does not dispute the holding of Si erra Club . However that case is not germane to EPA‘s approval of C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here because the Agency is not approving those commitments under section 110(k)(4)

. The relevant precedent is instead BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA , 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003)

. The facts in BCCA were very similar to those presented here. In BCCA , EPA approved an enforceable commitment in the Houston ozone SIP to adopt and implement unspecified NO x controls on a fixed schedule to achieve aggregateTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 195 emission red uctions. Petitioners claimed that EPA lacked authority under the CAA to approve a SIP containing an enforceable commitment to adopt unspecified control measures in the future. The court disagreed and found that section 110(k)(4) conditional approvals do no t supplant EPA's practice of fully approving enforceable commitments: Nothing in the CAA speaks directly to enforceable commitments. The CAA does, however, provide EPA with great flexibility in approving SIPs. A SIP may contain "enforceable emission limita tions and other control measures, means, or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate" to meet the CAA's requirements.... Thus, according to the plain language of the statute, SIPs may contain "me ans," "techniques" and/or "schedules and timetables for compliance" that the EPA considers "appropriate" for attainment so long as they are "enforceable." See id

. § 7410(a)(2)(A)

. "Schedules and timetables" is broadly defined as "a schedule of required mea sures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an emission limitation, prohibition or standard." 42 U.S.C. § 7602(p) . The remaining terms are not defined by the Act. Because the statute is silent on the issue of whether enforceable commitments are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for attainment, EPA's interpretation allowing limited use of an enforceable commitment in the Houston SIP must be upheld if reasonable.

BCCA at 839

- 840. The court upheld EPA‘ s approval of the commitment, finding that ―EPA reasonably concluded that an enforceable commitment to adopt additional control measures on a fixed schedule was an  ̳appropriate‘ means, technique, or schedule or timetable for compliance‖ under sections 110( a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Id . at 841. Thus the court recognized that sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) provide a basis for EPA to approve enforceable commitments as distinct from the commitments contemplated by section 110(k)(4) , which are not in fact enfo rceable but instead lead to SIP disapproval if not honored

. See also Environmental Defense v. EPA , 369 F.3d 193, 209

- 210 (2nd Cir. 2004) (similarly upholding enforceable SIP commitments)

. As a result, contrary to Earthjustice‘s contention, section 110(k)(4 ) is not a bar to EPA‘s approval of C ARB‘s and the District‘s enforceable commitments and that approval under section 110(k)(3) is permissible as an appropriate means, technique or schedule or timetable for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c) (6).

Comment : E arthjustice states that the commitments are ― absurd ‖ because CARB may claim credit toward its aggregate commitments from everything from new regulations to unenforceable incentive programs to ―actual decreases occurring in any air basin for which emission reduction commitments have been made.‖ Earthjustice states this is arbitrary and that EPA needs to explain how the commitments offered in the plan would be enforced

, what relief EPA or the public could demand

, and when a suit could be broug ht. Earthjustice states that it does not see how these
open

- ended commitments are practically enforceable in a court of law and asserts that EPA must lay out a roadmap that can be followed by courts in the future to ensure that meaningful emission reductio ns are achieved. Response : A s discussed in our amended proposal (76 FR 41338, 41355) , the CAA allows approval of enforceable commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted control measures. Commitments approved by EPA under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA are enforceable by E PA and citizens under, respectively,TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 196 sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced these actions against states that failed to comply with those commitments: See , e.g., American Lung Ass'n o f 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). See 76 FR 41338, 41355, n. 27. In response to Earthjustice‘s comment, we are clarifying in this final action that we are not providing SIP credit for ―actual decreases‖ in air pollution emissions or ―recession

- related reductions‖ in approving the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan. Rather, we are approving the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan taking into account CARB‘s revisions to the control strategy ba sed on the revisions to its projected baseline inventories. Specifically, a s explained in our 2011 pro posal, CARB‘s aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan as submitted in 2008 is to achieve 76 tpd of NO x reductions and 5 tpd of P M 2.5 reductions by 2014. See 76 FR 41338, 41346; CARB Resolution 07

- 28, A ttachment B at pp. 3

- 6 and 2 009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20. 91 The District‘s aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 is to ach ieve 8.97 tpd of N O x reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO 2 reduc tions by 2014. See 76 FR 41338, 41345, Table 3. More broadly, however, CARB‘s emissions reduction commitment is to achieve the ―total emissions reductions necessary to attain Federal st andards‖ through ―the implementation of control measures; the expenditure of local, State, or federal incentive funds; or through other enforceable measures.‖ See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B at pp. 3

- 6. The updates and improvements to the projected baseline inventories as presented in CARB‘s 2011 Progress Report altered the calculation of the reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in SJV by reducing the total reductions needed from control strategy measures to 9 tpd (for PM 2.5 ) , 26.1 tpd (for NO x ), and 0.8 tpd (for SO 2 ). See 76 FR 41338, 41354, Table 7. We therefore interpret CARB‘s emissions reduction commitment

, together with the adjustments to the 20 14 baseline inventories provided in CARB‘s 2011 SIP revision and the District ‘s commitments, as adjusting CARB‘s total emission reduction commitment such that the CARB is now obligated to achieve 2.3 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions and 17.1 tpd of NO x reductions 92 by 2014 through enforceable control measures to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in SJV. The District‘s aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 (8.97 tpd of NO x reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO 2 reductions by 2014) remains unchanged. See Table III

- 2 below. We also note that we do not agree with CARB‘s position that ―actual decreases occurring in any air basin for which emission reduction commitments have been made‖ or incentive programs may be counted as SIP credit toward CARB‘s enforceable commitment, unles s the State provides a demonstration that such emission decreases are enforceable or otherwise meet EPA‘s criteria for SIP creditability

.

91 In our proposed rule (76 FR 41338, 41346) we reference the 2007 State Strateg y, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B. p.6. Note that page 63 of the 2007 State Strategy was replaced with information in the 2 009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 20

- 21

92 Note that the District has already achieved all of the SO x reductions n ecessary to attain. See 76 FR 41338, 41354, Table 8.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 197 Table III

- 2 

### SJV‘s PM 2.5 

### the Attainment Demonstration (tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM 2.5 NO x SO 2

A Adjusted 2014 baseline emissions level 72.3 317.3 25.4

B 2014 attainment target level 63.3 291.2 24.6

C Reductions needed from control strategy measures (A

- B) 9.0 26.1 0.8

D District commitments 6.7 9.0 0.9

E CARB commitments (C

- D) 2.3 17.1

--

CARB‘s commitment is to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific reductions of NO x and PM 2.5 em issions and are, as such, specific strategies designed to achieve the SIP‘s overall objectives. Further, if CARB fails to meet its commitments, EP A could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), which starts an 18

- month period for the State to correct the non

- implementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed

, or alternatively either EPA or citizens could enforce t he commitments directly against CARB under CAA section 113 or 304, respectively

.

Comment : Earthjustice states that courts ―may only enforce SIP strategies‖ and that ―[m]ere approval of an aspirational goal or non

- specific promise into the SIP does not co nvert that goal or promise into an enforceable commitment.‖ In support of these assertions, Earthjustice cites Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n , 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9 th Cir. 2004) and Citizens for a Better Environment v. Metropolitan Tranp. Comm’n , 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBE II]. In addition, Earthjustice singles out El Comite Para El Bienstar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9 th Cir. 2008), stating that in El Comite the court ex plained that because an inventory in a SIP is not a ―standard or limitation‖ as defined by the CAA, it was not an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Thus, Earthjustice reasons, in order to be enforceable, not only must a state‘s commitment to ado pt additional measures to attain emission standards be specific and announced in plain language, but any data or rubric that will be used to determine when and how the state will adopt those measures must be enforceable. Similarly, citing Bayview and El C omite , AIR characterizes CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments to achieve aggregate emission reductions by the attainment year as ―global commitments‖ that could be interpreted as ―goals‖ unenforceable by citizens under Ninth Circuit precedent, rather than enforceable ―strategies‖ to achieve those goals. AIR argues that the plans‘ global commitments are not enforceable for two reasons. First, enforcement is not practical because it is virtually impossible for citizens or EPA to determine whether the C ARB an d the District have, in fact, met the global commitments. Second, the manner in which C ARB and theTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 198 District determine compliance with the tonnage target is left to their discretion, and citizens and EPA would be placed in the situation held by the plaintif fs in Warmerdam

. AIR add s that even if the commitments are viewed as ―strategie s‖ enforcement is not practical because when no measures are submitted to EPA for inclusion into the SIP, citizens have no idea which measures C ARB has used to satisfy the total tonnage commitments. AIR also
states that there are no provisions for C ARB and the District to report to EPA and the public what actions they have taken to comply with the tonnage commitments. EPA and citizens are left to determine, based on informat ion collected by C ARB and the District, whether the commitments have in fact been met. Response : U nder CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requ irements of the Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques ― as may be necessary or appropr iate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly by EPA under CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be b rought against any person who is alleged ―to be in violation of ... an emission standard or limitation....‖ ―Emission standard or limitation‖ is defined in subsection (f) of section 304. As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al ., 7 9 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1 st Cir. 1996):

C ourts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan," the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the NAAQS directly. See , e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613

- 14 . Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See , e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York

, 967 F.2d 764, 769

- 71 (2d Cir. 1992) ; Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530

- 32 (W.D. Va. 1995) ; Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454

- 59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990)

. Thus courts h ave found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that goal , including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions controls

. W e describe C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan in detail in our 2011 proposal. See 76 FR 41338, 41343

- 41347. The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose defined new measures and an enf

orceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measures and the District‘s commitments, to attain the PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by April 5, 2015. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B at pp. 3

- 6 and 2009 State Strategy StatusTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 199 Report, p. 21

. For the SJV, CARB ‘s emissions reductions commitments as submitted in 2008 were to achieve 76 tpd NO x and 5 tpd of direct PM 2.5 by 2014

. Id

. SJVUAPCD‘s commitments as submitted in 2008 were to achieve 9 tpd NO x and 6.7 tpd direct PM 2.5 by 2014. See 76 FR 41338, 41345

- 4 1346, See also 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, p. 6

- 9, Table 6

- 2

. The language used in the Board‘s resolution adopting the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan at page 5 to describe its commitment is mandatory and unequivocal in nature:

9. The District Governing Board commits to adopt and implement the rules and measures in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 6 to achieve the emissions reduct ions shown in Chapter 6 , and to submit these rules and measures to the ARB within one month of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. If the total emission reductions from the adopted rules are less than those commi tted to in the Plan, the District Governing Board commits to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of direct PM 2.5 or PM 2.5 precursors in the same adoption and implementation timefra mes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones

. ( E mphasis added).

SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 08

- 04

- 10, p. 5

. As discussed above, the 2011 SIP revisions reduced the reductions needed from new measures in 2014 to att ain to 9 tpd of PM 2.5 reductions, 26.1 tpd of NO x reductions, and 0.8 tpd of SO x . See 76 FR 41338, 41354, Table 7. The District‘s aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 remains unchanged (8.97 tpd of NO x reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM 2.5 reduction s, and 0.92 tpd of SO 2 reductions 93 by 2014). Thus, the CARB remains obligated to achieve through the adoption of enforceable measures by 2014, 2.3 tpd of PM 2.5 and 17.1 tpd of NO x . The District ‘s commitments remain as submitted in 2008 at 9 tpd NO x , 6.7 tp d direct PM 2.5 and 0.9 tpd SOx by 2014. See Table III

- 2 above.
Thus, C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specif

ic amounts of NO x and direct PM 2.5 emission reductions by 2014. These are not mere aspirational goals to ultimately achieve the standards or emission inventories as mentioned by Earthjustice. Rather, the State and District have committed to adopt enforceable measures no later than 2014 that will achieve these specific amounts of emission reductions prior to the attainment date of April 5, 2015. All of these control measures are subject to State and local rulemaking procedures and public participation requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/Dis trict‘s progress in achieving the requisite emission reductions. EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts of emission reductions by the beginning of 2014. See 40 CFR § 51.1007(b) (requiring implementation of all control measures needed for expeditious attainment no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date). We conclude that these enforceable

comm itments to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve aggregate emission reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, technique s , or schedule s for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act

.

93 Note that the District has already achieved all of the SO x reductions necessary to attain. See 76 FR 41338, 41354, Table 8.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 200 Both Earthjustice a nd AIR cite Bayview as support for their contention that the plan‘s commitments are unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. That case involved a provision of the 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which states in pertinent part: Support post

- 1983 improvements identified in transit operator‘s 5

- year plans, after consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983

- 1987.

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction esti mates are predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after consultation with the transit operators. Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that ―[r]idership increases would come from productivity improv ements....‖ Ultimately the 15 percent ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently attempted to enforce the 15 percent ridership increase. The cour t found that the 15 percent ridership increase was an unenforceable estimate or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered multiple factors, including the plain language of TCM 2 (e.g., ―[a]greeing to establish a ridership  ̳target‘ is simply n ot the same as promising to attain that target,‖ Bayview at 698); the logic of TCM 2, i.e ., the drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to characterize any given increase as an obligation because the TCM was contingent on a number of factors beyond MTC‘s contro l, id . at 699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of TCM 1 that had as an enforceable strategy the improvement of transit services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit operators‘ five

- year plans, id . at 701. As a result of all o f these factors, the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only enforceable strategy. Id . at 703. The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and 2008 PM 2.5 Plan are in stark contra st to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview

. The language in C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments, as stated multiple times in multiple documents, is specific ; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting

me asures to achieve the required reductions is completely within C ARB‘s and the District‘s control. Furthermore, as stated previously, C ARB and the District identify specific emission reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which these reductions will be achieved, i.e. , by 2014. Earthjustice also cites CBE II at 980 for the proposition that courts can only enforce ―express‖ or ―specific‖ strategies. However, as discussed below, there is nothing in the CBE cases that suppo rts the commenter‘s view that the C ARB and District commitments are neither express nor specific. In fact, these cases support our interpretation of C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments. Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian , 731 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990), known as CBE I , concerned in part contingency measures for the transportation sector in the 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP. The provision states: ―If a determination is made that RFP is not being met for the transportat ion sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 months of the determination. These TCMs will be designed to bring the region back within the RFP line."TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 201 The court found that ―[o]n its face, this language is both specific and mandatory.‖ Id . at 1458. In CBE I

, CA RB and MTC argued that TCM 2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that ―[ w] e discern no principled basis, consistent with t he Clean Air Act, for disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency measures are not provided. Thus we hold that t he basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, fully enforceable in a citizen ‘ s action, although the exact contours of those measures are not spelled out.‖ Id . at 1457. 94 In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were enfor ceable, the court stated: ―Thus, while this Court is not empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]

-- or NAAQS

-- directly, it can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan.‖ Id

. at 1454. Earthjustice‘s reliance on CBE II is misplaced. It also involves in part the contingency measures in the 1982 Bay Area Plan. In CBE II , defendants argued that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident because, had the plan‘s projections been accurate, the n achieving RFP would have resulted in attainment of the NAAQS. The court rejected this argument, stating that:

the Court would be enforcing the contingency plan , an express strategy for attaining NAAQS. Although enforcement of this strategy might possibly result in attainment, it is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved without anchoring that order on any specified strategy. Plainly, the fact that a specified strategy might be successful and lead to attainment does not render that strategy

u nenforceable. (Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980.

C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the contingency measures in the CBE cases. C ARB and the District commit to adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, to achieve a specific tonnage of emission reductions. Thus, the commitment to a specific tonnage reduction is comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount of emission reductions through adoption and implem entation of unidentified measures is comparable to the commitments to adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source measures. The key is that commitment must be clear in terms of what is required, e.g., a specified amount of emission reductions or the achie vement of a specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments are thus clearly a specific enforceable strategy rather than an unenforceable aspirational goal. Earthjustice‘s reliance on El Comite is also misplaced. The plainti ffs in the district court attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 California 1

- hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP‘s pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that ―ARB will develop a baseline inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use

94 In this passage, the court was referring specifically to the stationary source contingency measures in the Bay Area plan which contained a commitment to adopt such measures if emission targets were not met. The 2008 PM 2.5 Plan identified a number of pote ntial stationary sources but did not commit to any particular one. In discussing the transportation contingency measures, the court applied this same reasoning. Id . at 1456

- 1457.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 202 data....‖ El Com ite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2006). C ARB subsequently employed a different methodology that it deemed more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the original methodology, claiming that the calculation of the baseline inventory constitutes an ―emission standard or limitation.‖ The district court disagreed: By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the

amou nt of emissions attributed to those sources. As defendants argue, once the sources of air pollution are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to control emissions entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must conclude that the baseline is not an emission ― standard ‖ or ― limitation ‖ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (f)(1)

- (4)

. Id . at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBE I , pointing out that in those cases ―the measures at issue were designed to r educe emissions.‖ Id

. On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and the calculation methodology were necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court‘s conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected plaintiffs‘ arguments attempting ―to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitatio n by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt regulations, if necessary.‖ Id . at 1073. While Earthjustice cites the Ninth Circuit‘s El Comite opinion, its utility in analyzing the C ARB and District commitments here is limited to that court‘s a greement with the district court‘s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‘s opinion, in distinguishing the commitments in CBE and Bayview , that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not a measure to reduce emissions. It instead ―identifies emission sources and then quantifies the
amount of emissions attributed to those sources.‖ In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) and SJV 2007 PM 2.5 Plan, C ARB and the District commits to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified emission reductions by a date certain. As described above, a number of courts have found commitments substantially similar to C ARB‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

Comment : Earthjustice comments that before EPA can approve the commitments in the PM 2.5 plan it must explain how the promise to reduce emissions by some amount is a ―standard or limitation‖ enforceable under section 113 or 304 of the Act. Moreover, citing CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) , Earthjustice asserts that EPA must explain how enforcem ent of these commitments, which arguably could not even be considered until after the attainment deadline has come and gone, is adequate to assure the requirements of the Act (including timely attainment) are met. Earthjustice contends that t he strategy of relying on these open

- ended commitments is a recipe for failure and is not a reasonable substitute for the detailed, enforceable plan envisioned and required by the Act. Response : We disagree. As discussed above, EPA believes that CARB‘s and the District ‘s commitments to adopt and implement control measures to achieve the specified aggregateTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 203 tonnage by 2014 are enforceable as a n emission standard or limitation under CAA section 304. The fact that the State may meet its SIP obligation by adopting measures that are not specifically identified in the SIP, or through one of several available techniques, does not render the requirement to achieve the aggregate emission reductions unenforceable. State and local control measures are subject to rulemaking procedur es and public participation requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District‘s progress in achieving the requisite emission reductions in the years leading up to 2014 and before the attainment date of April 5, 2015. . Should the S tate/District fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts of emission reductions by the beginning of 2014 ( see 40 CFR § 51.1007(b)), EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), respectively.

Comment : The District and CARB commented that they have adopted all feasible measures and for areas such as the SJV, a higher percentage of enforceable commitments should be allowed. They argue that 30 percent can be a ―limited‖ amount given their circumstances and th at EPA‘s 10 percent level is arbitrary. They also argue that EPA has not explained why 30 percent is excessive especially given that the reductions are coming from already adopted rules (the in

- use off

- road equipment and in

- use truck rule). Finally, they argue that it is illogical for EPA to state that the State/District are capable of fulfilling its commitments (i.e., satisfy prong 2) but that the size of the commitments is too high to approve and that it is incongruous for EPA to commend the State/Distri ct on their rulemaking schedules, stating that they are reasonable and appropriate, and then to find that they do not meet the appropriate timeframe (i.e., third prong) of the commitments criteria. Response : T he question of whether 30 percent constituted a limited amount of commitments is now moot given the revised commitment is now in the 10 percent range. Our rationale for proposing to find that the commitments did not meet the third factor (reasonable and appropriate period of time) was due to the fact that we were not proposing to extend the attainment date to April 5, 2015 in our 2010 proposal; however, as discussed in our 2011 proposal and above we are now approving the extension and finding that the commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate p eriod of time.

Comment : The District comments that there is no requirement that measures must be EPA approved before the SIP can be approved. They also comment that it is unfair to hold them having approximately 90 percent of their emissions reductions adopted and approved by EPA and compare them to Houston because Houston‘s SIP was approved seven years after it was due to EPA and SJV‘s PM 2.5 SIP was only submitted 2.5 years ago. Response : As discussed above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that SIPs include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include en forceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques ―as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The timing of a State‘s submittal or EPA‘s action on that su bmittal does not alter these substantive requirements of the Act. We discussed in responses to comments above our reasons for approving the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan based in part on the limited amount of needed emission reductions that remain as enforceable commit ments, consistent with EPA‘s past practice.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 204 3. Other Control Strategy Comments

Comment : Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot credit the SO x reductions associated with Rule 4320 (AERO for boilers) without first collecting and providing the public a chan ce to review documentation of the sources that have installed controls and the pre

- and post

modification emissions from these sources and should also determine that these reductions are surplus and have not been used for emissions reductions offsets. Response : T he commenter provides no specific grounds for rejecting the District‘s estimates of SO x and PM 2.5 emissions reductions from Rule 4320 or documenting that the reductions have been used as offsets. EPA generally does not require pre

- and post

- con trol testing of sources before crediting emissions reductions from a rule in an attainment demonstration. We agree that any emissions reductions used as offsets must be surplus. We note that even if we excluded the current estimates of 1.92 tpd of SO x fro m the Rule in 2014, we would still conclude that the District had met its SO x commitment. The District committed to achieving 0.9 tpd of SO x and, if reductions from Rule 4320 are excluded, has achieved 1.7 tpd. See TSD, Tables F

- 2 and F

- 4. We also note tha t if we excluded the current estimate of 0.24 tpd of PM 2.5 , we would still conclude that the District had met its SO x commitment and the percent of needed reductions remaining as commitments was reasonable.

Comment : Mr. Unger commented that there should be extra control measures for ultrafine particulate matter ( PM with a diameter of 0.1 microns ) given that p articles of th is size can go from the alveolar sacs into the blood vessels and it is therefore likely that these small particles harm humans in different ways than bigger fine particles. Response : EPA currently does not have a NAAQS for ultrafine particulate. In April, 2011 EPA released its final ― Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards ,‖ (―2011 PM Policy Assessment‖) which presents EPA staff‘s conclusions regarding the adequacy of the current suite of PM standards as well as potential alternative standards . In preparing this p olicy assessment, EPA reviewed the latest scientific studies on particulate matter health effects, including the health effects of ultrafine particles, and conclude d that there is insufficient information at this time to consider adding a specific standar d for ultrafine particles

. See 2011 PM Policy Assessment, pp. 2

- 49 to 2

- 52.



### F. Attainment Date Extension

Comment : Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot grant an extension of the attainment date to April 5, 2015 because the flaws Earthjustice alleges a re in the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan ‘s attainment modeling and RACM/RACT analysis meant that the demonstration required to grant a 5

- year extension have not been met

. Earthjustice asserts that the alleged flaws include the exemptions for significant sources of emiss ions from the charbroiling, glass melting and open burning rules; the delay in the implementation of certain control requirements (glass melting and agricultural equipment), and the exclusion of controls for VOC and condensable PM 2.5 emissions in the Plan Response : We have evaluated Earthjustice‘s comments on the RACM/RACT analysis, VOC as an attainment plan precursor, and condensable particulate and have determined that none change our conclusion that the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan provides for RACM as required b y CAA section 172(c)(1).TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 205 Under the PM 2.5 implementation rule, states that request an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2) must provide sufficient information to show that attainment by April 5, 2010 is impracticable due to the sever ity of the nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of available and feasible control measures to provide for faster attainment. See 40 CFR 51.1004(b). States must also demonstrate that all RACM and RACT for the area are being implemented to bring ab out attainment of the standards by the most expeditious alternative date practicable for the area. 72 FR 20586

, 20601. As discussed in our 2011 proposal, we believe that California has met the relevant tests for granting an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2). See 76 FR 41388, 41341.

Comment : The District comments that the five

- year attainment date extension should not automatically be denied because the attainment demonstration is not approvable. EPA should consider conditional a pproval. The extension of the attainment date is crucial to allow for development of technology, rule development and mobile fleet turnover. Response : The PM 2.5 implementation rule requires that EPA act on an attainment date extension and attainment dem onstration at the same time. See 40 CFR § 51.1004(b). Since EPA is now approving the attainment demonstration and attainment date extension, we do not need to address the District‘s request that we consider a conditional approval under CAA section 110(k)(4 ). Finally, we have concluded that the extension of the attainment date to April 5, 2015 is necessary given the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control

measures.

Comment : Mr. Unger commented that to a pregnant S JV woman, a PM 2.5 attainment date of April 5, 2015 must seem very distant and that date means her child's lungs will be exposed to PM 2.5 in their most formative years. Response : F or the reasons discussed in our proposals and further in response to comments above, EPA is concluding that the most expeditious date for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV is April 5, 2015. See 76 FR 41338, 41335.We note that many areas of the Valley are expected to have ambient PM 2.5 levels below the standa rds before then.



### G. Attainment Demonstration

Comment : E arthjustice comments that EPA should not approve the attainment demonstration, because of its ― heavy ‖ reliance on State commitments to adopt last

- minute control measures and because the emissions red uctions and the attainment targets are not valid given the problems in the inventory and the modeling analysis. Furthermore, the defective modeling results in inaccurate attainment target levels. Response : T he SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP does not rely heavily on State commitment to ―adopt last

minute controls.‖ As noted previously, the bulk of the emissions reductions needed for attainment are from measures adopted prior to 2007 . 76 FR 41338, 41354. M oreover, one of EPA‘s criteria for approving attainment demonstr ations that rely on commitments is that the commitments represent a limited portion of the reductions needed for attainment. As we have shown, CARB‘s and the District‘s remaining commitments account for only 4.5 percent (12.9 tpd) of the NO x and 13.2 perce nt (3.0 tpd) of the PM 2.5 reductions needed for attainment. Id . In comparison, the State has already achieved 271 tpd of NO x and 19.7 tpd of PM 2.5
. See 76 FRTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 206 41338, 41354 (Table 8) (numbers are the sum of lines B and C). Finally, we have determined that the SJV PM 2.5 Plan provides for generally linear reduction in emissions demonstrating reasonable further progress as required by CAA 172(c)(2).



### H. Reasonable Further Progress

Comment : In its August 2011 letter, Earthjustice comments that EPA should disa pprove the RFP demonstration because it fail s to address VOC and to show generally linear progress in reducing emissions . It also argues that because of the alleged defects in the inventory and the alleged failure of the modeling analysis to identify the t arget level of emission reductions , it is im possible to assess progress . It further argues that the RFP demonstration must also be updated to reflect corrections to the inventory. Response : For the reasons discussed in the proposal and response to comme nts on the precursor issue, EPA has found that insufficient data exist to reverse the presumption in the PM 2.5 implementation rule that VOC is not a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards in the SJV. See 76 FR 41338, 413 50 and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 50. Because VOC is not considered an attainment plan precursor, it need not be addressed in the RFP demonstration. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(c). For the reasons discussed in the proposal and response to comments on the air quality

m odeling, EPA has found that the air quality modeling in the SJV 2007 PM 2.5 SIP is adequate to support the attainment demonstration and thus to establish the target level of emissions. As discussed in th e proposal, EPA evaluated the effect of the changes in the base year inventory on the RFP demonstration and determined that it did not revise our conclusion that the Plan provided for RFP. See 76 FR 41338, 413 48 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.B.

Comment : In its January 2011 letter, Earthjustice agreed with EPA‘s 2010 proposed disapproval of the RFP demonstration. It also argued that defects it alleged existed in the inventory meant that it was not possible to assess RFP. It concluded that RFP demonstratio n must also be updated to reflect corrections to the inventory. Response : Calif

ornia has updated the RFP demonstration to reflect changes to the future year inventories. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix C and 76 FR 41338, 41356. For the reason described in 2011 proposal, EPA has determined that the revised RFP demonstration meets the requirement for RFP in CAA section 172(c)(2). EPA evaluated the effect of the changes in the base year inventory on the RFP demonstration and determined that it did not revise our conclusion that the Plan provided for RFP. See 76 FR 41338, 41357 (ftn. 32) and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 122.

Comment : I n response to EPA‘s initial proposed disapproval of the RFP demonstration , the SJVUAPCD maintained that the RFP demonstration should be approved because it was implementing its rules as expeditiously as practicable and has made steady progress in reducing emissions. It also stated that it was investigating an alternative analysis approach to showing to show how the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP meets EPA‘s ―milestone date fraction‖ analysis.
Response : C ARB submitted a revised RFP demonstration for the SJV in Appendix C of the 2011 Progress Report. EPA proposed to approve that demonstration in our 2011 proposal as andTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 207 we are concluding that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and the PM 2.5 implementation rule. See 76 FR 41338, 41357.



### I. Contingency Measures

Comment : In its August 2011 letter, Earthjustice states that EPA ‘s analysis of the contingency measures in the 2008 Plan is generally sound. Earthjustice, however, conten d s that our analysis relies on an RFP analysis that in turn relies on invalid NO x to PM 2.5 interpollutant equivalency ratios. It further argues that because these ratios are invalid , the assessment of the excess reductions in the RFP demonstration is also invalid and the shortfall targets must be recalculated usin g valid methods and results. Response : EPA‘s calculation of the excess reductions in the RFP demonstration is done on a per pollutant basis and does not assume any interpollutant trading. See 76 FR 4133 8 , 41359 (Table 10) and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 130. In the 2011 Progress Report, CARB states t hat these reductions are equal to at least one

- year‘s worth of RFP when considered on a PM 2.5 equivalency basis ( See 2011 Progress Report, p. 2) ; however, to make this statement , the State relies in part on an interpollutant trading ratio of 1 ton of SO x r eductions to 1 ton of PM 2.5 reductions. As discussed in section II.B.4. of th e 2011 Proposal TSD, EPA found that there was insufficient technical support for this ratio and EPA did not allow its use in the RFP demonstration or for any other purpose

. Id . at 42358 and p. 129.

Comment : In its January 31, 2011 comments, Earthjustice notes that the District proposes to rely on emission reductions achieved by the ozone nonattainment fee and other incentive programs. It argues that the District does not have cri teria for how these monies will be spent and does not provide a mechanism for ensuring that any claimed emission reductions are enforceable and that any future reliance on funding programs to reduce emissions must demonstrate that the emission reductions m eet statutory creditability requirements including an explanation of how these agreements between the District and the subsidized source can be enforced by EPA or the public. Response : We are not approving reductions from the District‘s incentive grant pr ograms as part of the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP‘s contingency measures provisions; therefore, comments related to them are not ge rmane to this action. In both its 2010 and 2011 proposals EPA proposed to disapprove the Plan‘s contingency measures provisions and is dis approving those provisions in today‘s acti on. See 75 FR 74518, 7453 9 and 76 FR 41338, 4135 8 . Those provisions include the District‘s

o zone nonattainment fee program and other incentive programs as potential contingency

measures. In both proposals, we noted that whi le neither the CAA nor EPA policy bar the use of emissions reductions from incentive programs to meet all or part of an area‘s contingency measure obligation, the incentive programs must assure that the reductions are surplus, quantifiable, e nforceable, and permanent in accordance with EPA ‘s guidance

. See ―Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,‖ EPA

- 452/R

- 01

- 001 (January 2001) . We also noted that t he 2008 PM 2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive grant programs expected to
ge nerate the emissions reductions . The Plan also does not identify the quantity of these emissions reductions that the District intend ed to use to meet the contingency measure requirement

. Theref ore, we are unable to determine if they are SIP creditable or s ufficient to provide in combination with other measures the roughly one

- year‘s worth of RFP needed

. For theseTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 208 reasons, we determined that programs did not currently meet the CAA requirements for contingency measures. See 75 FR 74518, 74538 and 76 FR 41338, 4135 8

.

Comment : While AIR agrees with EPA‘s proposed disapproval of the contingency measures , it argues against the use of waiver measures and on

- road fleet turnover as contingency measures because waiver measures are not in the SIP and there are no cont rol measures that require fleet turnover. It further argues that reductions from fleet turnover are derived from assumptions based on voluntary future activity that fail to meet the Act‘s requirements for enforceable measures. Finally, it asserts that EPA has made no finding that such fleet turnover reductions have actually occurred. Response : As discussed previously, we believe that reductions from CAA section 209 waiver measures can be used to meet CAA requirements including the contingency measure requi rem ent even though they are not in the SIP.

The measures relied on in part for contingency measure emission reductions are the State and federal on

- and off

- road new engines standards

. Fleet turnover is the mechanism by which these new engine standards are implemented, and it is how these standards actually result in emissions reductions in an area. CARB calculates reductions from its mobile sources, including base year and future projected year, using its EMFAC2007 and OFFROAD mode ls. These models included assumptions regarding fleet turnover based on historical records. 95 Recent updates to the truck inventories included review and adjustments of fleet turnover rates which are also based on available records. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR , section F.

Comment : SJVUACPD commented that EPA‘s current requirement that contingency measures provide for one

- year‘s worth of emissions reductions is not practical for areas like the SJV and that EPA should work towards realistic and specific solutio ns for future implementation rules. It also stated that it would continue to work with EPA to incorporate reductions from the District‘s incentive programs into the SIP so that they may be used satisfy the contingency measures requirement. Response : EPA recognizes the difficulty of identifying contingency measures and appreciates the District‘s concerns. We will continue to work with the District to identify potential contingency measures including incentive programs that produce reductions that are surpl us, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent in accordance with EPA guidance.



### J. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment : Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot approve the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets because they are derived from attainment a nd RFP demonstrations that Earthjustice asserts are not approvable because they are based on invalid modeling. It also claims the issues with the modeling also affect the conformity analysis because it depend s on interpollutant equivalency ratio between NO x and PM 2.5 that is derived from the modeling. Earthjustice notes that CARB derived th is ratio by conducting a sensitivity analysis with the model which

95 S e e CARB, ―Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Revisions to the State‘s On

- Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory, Technical Support Document,‖ May 2000, section 7.3 ―Retention Rates‖ which can be found at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/doctable_test.htm.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 209 according to Earthjustice, EPA acknowledge d was not a legitimate basis for determining interpollutant e quivalency ratios , citing the 2011 Proposal TSD at p. 47. Earthjustice further claims that these ― defective ratios ‖ were used to demonstrate RFP and conformity. Response : We agree with Earthjustice that EPA would not be able to approve budgets that are d erived from unapprovable or disapproved attainment or RFP demonstrations. However, as described in our 2011 proposal and TSD , we are approving these demonstrations in the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan and, because they are derived from these demonstrations and meet all other meet all applicable requirements for transportation conformity budgets, EPA is also approving the budgets. For the reasons discussed above in our response to comments on the air quality modeling, we do not agree with Earthjustice that the modelin g is invalid.

CARB included a trading mechanism to be used in transportation conformity analyses that use the proposed budgets as allowed for under 40 CFR § 93. 124. This trading mechanism allow s future decreases in NO x emissions from on

- road mobile sources to offset any on

- road increases in PM 2.5 , using a NO x :PM 2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB and proposed for approval by EPA, the trading mechanism w ould only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses for years af

ter 2014 . Also, t o ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability of the SJV to meet the NO x budget, the NO x emission s reductions available to supplement the PM 2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the 2014 NO x budget has been met. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix D, p. 2 and 76 FR 41338, 41361. We found that the method CARB used to derive the 9:1 NO x to PM 2.5 ratio , which was based on the SIP‘s photochemical modeling, is adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area

- wide e missions changes, such as are used in RFP, contingency measures, and conformity budgets. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD, p.46. EPA did find that the method used by CARB and the District (a modified rollback approach) to derive the 1:1 SO x to PM 2.5 is inadequate for determining interpollutant equivalency ratios and stated that this issue would be better explored with a photochemical model. See 76 FR 41338, 41349 and 2011 Proposal TSD, p.4 7

. It is this latter discussion that Earthjustice inc orrectly cites as its basis for claiming that EPA rejected the interpollutant trading ratio used in establishing the trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses

. The 2008 PM 2.5 SIP does not establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for SO 2 and therefore does not establish an SO 2 : PM 2.5 trading mechanism for transportation conformity purposes

. We note again that, contrary to Earthjustice‘s claim, CARB did not rely on interpollutant trading to demonstrate RFP, and therefore EPA did not propose t o approve and is not approving the RFP demonstration based on any interpollutant trading. See 2 011 Progress Report, Appendix C , p. 1 and 76 FR 41338, 413 57

. 96

Comment : Earthjustice claims that a transportation agency cannot rel y on budgets derived from wh at it considers to be the unapprovable SJV2008 PM 2.5 SIP without violating CAA section 176(c)(1) because they would not be able to assure that their actions w ould not interfere with timely attainment or reasonable further progress

.

96 CARB did reserve excess SO x reductions in the RFP demonstration t o provide for direct PM 2.5 contingency measures. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 2. EPA rejected this approach. See 76 FR 41338, 41358.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 210 Response : As documented in this TSD and our 2011 proposed rule, EPA has found that the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP demonstrates reasonable further progress and expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 standards consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA‘s implementing regulation s. We have also concluded that the budgets in this SIP are consistent with these demonstrations and are both adequate and approvable. Therefore, the SJV MPOs must use these budgets in their transportation conformity determinations.



### K. Miscellaneous Commen ts

Comment : AIR claims that EPA fails to list the 2009 State Strategy Status Report (pages 11

- 23) among the documents which it proposes to include as part of the SIP, citing 76 FR 41338, 41361, and that this is an error given C ARB‘s intent in the 2009 Sta te Strategy Status Report (citing p. 11 )

. AIR requests that EPA clarif y its intent to approve a C ARB commitment for staff to propose a rule to regulate in

- use mobile agricultural equipment. AIR notes that t his commitment was part of the 2007 State Strategy ( citing CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B , p. 7 ) , included in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, and was a component of EPA‘s previous proposed approval of the 2007 State Strategy (citing 75 F R 74518, 74541 (November 30, 2011) ), but is not included in the updated rulemaking schedule in 2011 Progress Report. Response : EPA lists the 2009 State Strategy Status Report as one of five submittals that comprise the 2007 PM 2.5 SIP for the SJV. See 76 FR 41338, 41340. We also state in section VI. (EPA‘s prop osed Actions and Potential Consequences) that we were proposing to approve the SJV portions of CARB‘s 2007 State Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 addressing CAA and EPA regulations for attainment of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. We specifically proposed to approve CARB‘s commitments to propose certain defined measures as listed in Table B

- 1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report submittal based on CARB‘s own characterization of that submittal as its updates to its rulemaking schedule for the PM 2.5 measures in t he 2007 State Strategy

. See 2011 Progress Report, p. 8, Table 1.

On June 20, 2011 CARB noticed proposed revisions to the ozone portions of the 2007 State Strategy including revisions to the rulemaking schedule for in

- use agricul tural equipment. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of Proposed Revision s for the 8

- Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM 2. 5 SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2011 . As stated in the proposed revisions, CARB does not consider the in

- use agricultural measures to be part of its PM 2.5 control strategy and therefore did not include updates to the schedule for that me asure in its PM 2.5 S IP revision. 97 See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 3. These revisions were adopted by the Board on July 21, 2011, submitted to EPA on July 29, 2011 and proposed for approval by EPA on September 16, 2011 at 76 FR 57846

. This proposed approva l includes the revised schedule for the in

- use agricultural equipment

measure. See 76 FR 57846, 57853

. 98

97 As discussed previous, CARB provided emissions reductions estimates for the in

- use agricultural equipment m easure only for 2017, which is three years after the 2014 attainment year for PM 2.5 .

98 AIR notes that Table F

- 8 in EPA‘s 2011 Proposal TSD lists the agricultural equipment rule as a defined measure in th e 2011 Progress Report . This was an error and has b een corrected in the final TSD.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 211 Comment : AIR requests clarification from EPA on whether the omission of the proposed commitment in the 2011 Progress Report is an administrative error, or whether C ARB intentionally removed that commitment from the 2007 State Strategy. AIR notes that b ased on C ARB‘s website, it appears that the omission was in error, because C ARB continues to represent to the public that it is working on the in

- use ag ricultural equipment rule. AIR asserts, to the extent that C ARB intentionally removed the commitment, such action violates 40 C.F.R. § 51.102 because C ARB did not provide adequate notice to the public of this fundamental change
to C ARB‘s strategy and that t he public should not be expected to search through ― voluminous SIP

- related material, searching out stealth amendments by omission. ‖
Response : As required by 40 CFR 51.102, CARB posted the draft 2011 Progress Report including the p roposed revisions to the rulemaking schedule in the 2007 State Strategy 30 days prior to the public hearing and requested public comments

. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of a Progress Report and Proposed State Implementation Pl an Revisions for PM 2.5 , March 29, 2011

. Questions and comments on the State‘s proposed revisi ons to its rulemaking schedule, including changes to the in

- use agricultural equipment measure, should be directed to CARB during the State‘s public comment period s or at the public hearings. CARB‘s lists its entire rulemaking schedule for the State Strategy on prominently labeled tables o n page 65 of the 2007 State Strategy, on page 23 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, and in Appendix B of the 2011 Progress Report. All three of these documents are readily available to the public on CARB‘s web site.

Comment : AIR comments that the 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan and the 200 7 State Strategy fail to demonstrate a monitoring program for CARB mobile source measures and t he pesticide regulation, stating EPA regulations specifically require each plan to make this demonstration, citing 40 CFR § 51.111. It provides as an example, CARB‘s anti

- idling rules. Response : EPA‘s regulation at 40 CFR § 51.111 requires each plan incl ude a description of enforcement methods including, but not limited to, procedures for monitoring compliance with each of the selected control measures and pro cedures for handling violations. These requirements apply to the control measures that are in the SIP. For the reasons discussed previously, we do not believe that California‘s mobile source measures that receive waivers under CAA section 209 need to be submitted for inclusion into the SIP; therefore, California need not include a description of the e nforcement and or monitoring program for these measures in its SIP. 99 As noted previously, CARB‘s anti

- idling regulations are pending a section 209 waiver decision. Should any of these provisions need to be submitted for SIP approval, we will evaluate their monitoring procedures at the time we take action to incorporate them into the SIP. As we have also noted previously, t he pesticide regulation is not part of the 2008 PM 2.5 SIP‘s control strategy; therefore, the lack of any monitoring procedures is not mat erial to our approval of th is SIP. As a practical matter, to be effective, monitoring procedures (which includes monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and testing procedures) must be tailored to the specific emissions limitation for which they are to be used. For example, the procedures for monitoring NO x emissions from utility boilers are very different from the procedures for monitoring the

99 For a description of CARB‘s source monitoring and enforcement programs including its procedures for handling violations, See http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/enf.htm.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 212 VOC content of paints. Compare, for example, Rule 4601 (Boilers > 5 million BTU per hour), sections 5.4 ―Monito ring Requirements‖ and 6.0 ―Administrative Requirements‖ requiring continuous emissions monitoring and annual source testing using specific test procedures to Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings), section 6.0 ―Administrative Requirements‖ specifying label

re quirements, requiring maintenance of annual sales records, and specifying test methods for determining the VOC content of coating s

. Because of the need to tailor monitoring procedures to the emissions limit, EPA evaluates a prohibitory rule‘s monitoring, r ecordkeeping, and testing procedures at the time it reviews the rule for incorporation into the SIP. We note that we are not approving any rules or regulations as part of this specific action on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP.

Comment: Petitions with signatures from hundreds of SJV and Ventura residents submitted in support of AIR‘s comment letter also called on EPA to protect the petitioners‘ health and the health of their families by ensuring that the SJV PM 2.5 Plan met all applicabl e requirements under the Clean Air Act so that the petitioners could ―force the Air Resources Board and the Air District to fulfill what they promised‖ to have air quality that meets the 1997 PM 2.5 standards no later than April 5, 2015. Petitioners state t hat given ―the failures by ARB and the Air District to meet the 1

- hour ozone standards of the Clean Air Act,‖ EPA must ensure that the 1997 PM 2.5 standards are timely attained. Response : We have fully responded to all of AIR‘s comments above. We believe t hat the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP meets all applicable requirements of the CAA and will provide for air quality that meets the 1997 PM 2.5 standards by April 5, 2015.

Comment : Mr. Unger commented that he wish ed EPA would lobby SJV City Councils and County Boards of Supervisors when they consider sprawling housing projects, fossil fuel burning facilities including gasification and spending money on roads rather than transit. Response : EPA has long supported smart growth principles and has some limited authority, for example under the National Environmental Protection Act, to suggest alternatives to projects when federal funding is used. In addition, we ensure through our CAA permitting authority that new or modified facilities burning fossil fuels are well control led. However, we lack the authority to ban the use of fossil fuels.

### Appendix A

– CARB Rules and Meas uresTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 1 

### A

. Complete List of State Measures

Appendix Table A

- 1 is a list of all measures adopted by CARB from 1990 until the end of 2006

. This period covers the 18 years prior to the development of the 2007 State Strategy and the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan

. The table should include any substantive rule s that would still be generating emission s reductions in the San Joaquin Valley during the 2005

- 2014 period covered by the Plan and thus refle cted in the baseline for the P lan.

This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State‘s inspection and maintenance program adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive R epair. Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address particulate matter or a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV (e.g., asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the SJV ( e.g., test methods)

.

Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorants

. . T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone)

. . T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty

. . T 13, CCR, 2035

- 2041, 1977 12/14/89 On

- road

Non

- vehicular Test Methods

. . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 & 38391 02/08/90 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from Sterilizers & Aerators

. . T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 2 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 I nvento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not applicable

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD

. . T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Consumer products

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard

. . T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles

. . T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 On

- road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel

. . T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical Waste Incinerators

. . T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for California Clean Air Act

. . T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards

. . T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations

. . T 17, CCR, 70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I

. . T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels

. . T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 On

- road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I

- Consumer Products

. . T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Consumer productsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 3 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Controls for Abrasive Blasting

. . T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing

. . T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 On

- road

Revision to Designation Criteria

. . T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code

. . T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines

. . T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Off

- road

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant

.

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not applicable

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel

. . T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Fuels

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. . T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not applicable

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. . T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not applicable

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods

. . T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not applicable

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. . T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable

Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light & Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 On

- road

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 4 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Gasoline, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 2292.3, 229 2.5 , 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 12/12/91 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Off

- road

Phase II

- Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Consumer products

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels

. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 03/12/92 On

- road

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees

. T 17, CCR, 90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not applicable

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On

- road

Transported Air Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 5 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not applicable

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 On

- road

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 On

- road

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from Non

- Ferrous Metal Melting

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 On

- road

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not applicable

1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93 Off

- road

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not applicable

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not applicable

Urban Transit Buses

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 On

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 6 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 On

- road

Mitigation Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 08/12/93 Not applicable

Wintertime Oxygenate Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not applicable

Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency

. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Fuels

Conflict of Interest

. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Off

- road

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 On

- road

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not applicable
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not applicable

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Fuels

Small Refiner Diesel

. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Fuels
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 applicableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 7 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 On

- road

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II

. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On

- road

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 On

- road

Specification for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels (M100)

. T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control Plan

. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547. 03/23/95 Consumer products

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable

Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula

. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On

- road

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 On

- road

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 22 58(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels

Retrofit Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On

- road

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Consumer products

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3)

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 On

- road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 FuelsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 8 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Mo nox ide 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 invento ry) 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 Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 9 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Emission s 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 incorp orate 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

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 10 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17,CCR 90800 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400,2410

- 2414 03/26/98 Off

- road

Classifying Minor Violations

. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating

. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility

. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 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

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 11 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the amendment of ARB Method 310 11/19/98 Consumer products

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Consumer products

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Off

- road

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off

- road

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles

. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On

- road

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Off

- road

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 On

- road

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content)

. T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for MTBE

. T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP

- 201, TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements

. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On

- road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure

. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Off

- road

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

- Term Measures II

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 12 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

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, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not applicable

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities

. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products

Aerosol ( Paint) Coatings Products

. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine

. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program

. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations

. 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 applicableTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 13 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)" Test Procedures

. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On

- road

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards

. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 On

- road

Ozone Transport Assessment

. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment

. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining

. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by reference 07/26/01 Off

- road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds

. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test procedures 10/25/01 On

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 14 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Other

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects

. T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorp o ra te test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 On

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning

. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On

- road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

Use Compliance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 On

- road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates

. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Fuels

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 On

- road

Administrative Civil Penalties Program

. T 17, CCR, 60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling

. T 13, 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 FuelsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 15 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicles II

. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes

. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 On

- road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles

. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Off

- road
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On

- road

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Off

- road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values

. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units

. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines

. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate 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

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 16 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 6020 2, 60205, 60210 01/22/04 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Off

- road

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations

. T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of 2466 02/26/04 Off

- road

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash

. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 On

- road

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 On

- road

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para

Dicholorobenzene

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling

. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing

. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List

. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas

. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 17 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

California Reformulated Gasoline, 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 C raft & 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

. T 17, 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 System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD)

. T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 On

- road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit

. Emergency Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 FuelsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 18 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 On

- road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]

. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Off road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]

. T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008

. T 13, CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines

. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Off

- road

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/05 Off

- road

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 On

- road

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards

. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off

- road

AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 On

- road

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use

. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 On

- road

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 On

- roadTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 19 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off

Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Off

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Off

- road

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Off

- road

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On

- road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Other

Zero Emission Bus Regulation

. T 13, 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 productsTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 20 Appendix Table A

- 1 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program

, Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 12/06/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations

. T 17, CCR, 93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Not applicable

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 On

- road



### B

. State Rules that Do Not Address Direct PM 2.5 

### or PM 2.5 

### Attainment Plan Precursor s in the San Joaquin Valley

A substantial number of the measures adopted by C ARB since 1990 do not affect direct PM 2.5 or a PM 2.5 attainment plan precursor emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. These types of measures include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and controls for pollutants other than direct PM 2.5 (or PM), NO x , VOC, or SO 2
. Appendix Table A

- 2 provides a list of these measures.

Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone)

. T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emission s reduction

measure

Non

- vehicular Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emission s reduction

measure Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not a PM emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 21 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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 PM 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

Emission s 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 I nvento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Revision to Designation Criteria

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- V ehicular 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.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 22 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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

measure

Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Transported Air Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure
Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction

measure

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not a PM or PM 2.5 attainment plan
precursors 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

measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 23 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Mitigation Transport Pollutants

. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 08/12/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not a PM or PM 2.5 attainment plan precursors emissions reduction

measure

Conflict of Interest

. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure Criteria for Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction

measure SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not a SJV control measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction

measure 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 requirementTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 24 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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 invento ry) 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 11/2 1/96 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 Emission s Reduction Credits

. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700

- 90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations '97

. T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17,CCR 90800 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Classifying Minor Violations

. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating

. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure Stationary Source Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 25 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Administrative Hearing Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emissions reduction

measure Agricultural Burning Guidelines

. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine

. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not a PM or PM 2.5 attainment plan
precursors emissions reduction

measure
Conflict of Interest Code

. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program

. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not a SJV control measure (Sacramento Valley air basin only)
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction

measure

Ozone Transport Assessment

. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation

. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reduction

measure 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

measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 26 Appendix Table A

- 2 

### Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address PM 2.5 

### in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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

meas ure

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

. T 17, 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 Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines

. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 No t an emissions reduction

measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards

. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction

measure



### C

. State Fuel Measures

C ARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel standards for off

- road sources

. Appendix Table A

- 3 is a list of these revisions.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 27 Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Renumber ed to section 228 1

. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Renumber ed to section 2282

. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) (listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)
Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency

. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Small Refiner Diesel

. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Diesel Fuel Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel

. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard

. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft & 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 C ARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996

. Obsolete.
California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG

. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline

. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Section 2251.5

- obsolete; section 2258 wintertime; section 2263, superseded
Wintertime Oxygenate Program

. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measure

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules
Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives)

. T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rulesTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 28 Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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 R epealed 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 Requirement 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 rules

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))TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 29 Appendix Table A

- 3 

### Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

California Reformulated Gasoline, 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 Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emission s reductions
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay

. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired



### D

. State On

- Road Mobile Sources Measures

Appendix Tables A

- 4 and A

- 5 list measures adopted by C ARB since 19 90 for on

- road and off

- road sources.

Appendix Table A

- 4



### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts

. VC 27156 & 38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16 , 1994 (59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 FR 46979 (9/13/94))

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 Waivers granted January 7, 19 93 & April 6, 19 98 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))
Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing

. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 Inspection programTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 30 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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, 19 96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96)) Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91
Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel Specification

. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994
Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1960. 1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994
Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 Inspection program

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 59920 (October 6, 2004 ) )
Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Diesel Fuel Certification

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995
Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II

. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 19 96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))
Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 Inspection programTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 31 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04))
Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))

Retrofit Emission Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3)

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding requested October 8, 1996.

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18

, 200 1 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)
Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers

. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs)

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 (69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and 2190

- 2194 12/11/97 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001
Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000)

. T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140, 2143

- 2148 11/05/98 Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within the scope (1999 ZEV amendments) December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles

. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program

. Revised 2/21/ 06 and 12/7/06TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 32 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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

. Feder al & 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 1 4, 2007).
Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)" Test Procedures

. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001

. Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update

. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment

. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures 10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,19 60.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 Found within the scope Ap ril 21, 2005 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01
Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program

. Revised 12/7/06

. On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 ( 2/5/04 )TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 33 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements over 2000 rule.

Low Emission Vehicles II

. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes

. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05)) for all but HDGE

. HDGE standards adopted to harmonize with EPA‘s. Initial notice on within

- the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 ( 5/ 1 4/07 ).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling

. T 13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emission s 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 Dec e mber 21, 2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 Diesel reduction program. Minimal reductions. See CARB, ― Staff Report: Initial Statement Of Reasons

, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure f or On

Road Heavy

- Duty Residential a nd Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles ,‖ June 6, 2003 , p. 53.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Transport Refrigeration Units

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments)

. T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 Complian ce 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

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 34 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 Waiver granted December 22, 2005 (71 FR 335 (1/4/06))

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4 06/24/04 Various modifications to urban/transit bus standards

.
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling

. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 Diesel reduction program

Greenhouse Gas Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted June 30, 2009 (74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009)

Transit Fleet Rule

. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05 Diesel reduction program

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD)

. T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 Waiver granted August 13, 2008 (73 FR 52042 (9/8/08))

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

no tice 75 FR 43975 ( 7/27/ 2010 )

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities

. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 Diesel reduction program. Minimal reductions. See CARB, ― Staff Report: Initial Statement Of Reasons

, Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure f or On

Road Heavy

- Dut y Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned o r Operated By Public Agencies And Utilities ,‖ October 21, 2005 , p. 55.
AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program

. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission control labels

.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use

. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology, supporting rule for in

use control measures.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 35 Appendix Table A

- 4


### On

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures

. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 2010 (75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010))

.

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule

. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 Compliance provision

. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01

On

- Board Diagnostic II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested

.

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 Compliance provision

. Compliance program "essentially identical to EPA's

. " See Updated Information Digest for the Rule.

Zero Emission Bus Regulation

. T 13, 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.

A ppendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines

. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Waiver granted July 5, 19 95 ( 60 FR 37440 ( 7 /2 0 /95) ) 1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 36 A ppendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines

. CO Standards 1/25/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE)

. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2410

- 2414 03/26/98 W ithin the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 (11/20/00)), waiver granted (durability requirements)

, November 10, 20 03 ( 65 FR 65702 (1 1 / 21 /0 3 ))

. 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

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles

. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Addition to March 4, 2000 request November 19, 2004

. Made changes to riding season restrictions

. Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission standards identical to EPA's.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 37 A ppendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article 2.1. 01/2 7 /00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 )

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 ) )

In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2449 07/26/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment (on waiver), 7 5 FR 11880 ( 3/12/2010 ).

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 20 06 (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;

a dopts more stringent standards for 2010

.

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 sta ndards waiver granted April 26, 2011 ( 76 FR 24872 (5/3/11))

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines

. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Revision to year 2007 standards in 7/26/2001 marine inboard engine standards

. Waiver requested February 7, 2008.

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2465 03/27/97 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule Waiver request withdrawn/replaced by favor of December 5, 2008 request

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations

. T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of 2466 02/26/04 Revised by June 22, 2006 ruleTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 38 A ppendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7196)
Within

- the

- scope finding/waiver requested March 28, 2005.

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9 , 2011 (76 FR 7194)
Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

. Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 12/06/06 Expired.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3 , 93116.3.1 03/22/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 9 , 2011 (76 FR 7194)
Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requeste d 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, 200 9 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards

. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment published February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5586)
Within

- the

- scope finding and

w aiver request January 29, 20 07TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 39 A ppendix Table A

- 5 

### Off

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 No emission s reductions. No cruise ships subject to rule call at SJV ports

. See Initial Statement of Reasons for Rule, p. II

- 1.
Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline

. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/05 No emission s 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 emission s reductions claimed for SJV

.

Ocean

- Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power)

. T 13, CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and documents incorporated by reference 12/06/07 No emission s reductions claimed

Commercial Harbor Craft

. T 13, CCR, 2222 and incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters" 11/15/07 No emission s reductions claimed

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean

- Going Vessel Main Engines and Auxiliary Boiler

. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, CCR, section 93118.2 07/24/08 Proposed approval signed June 29, 2011



### E

. State Consumer Product Measures

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for 20 years and continues to tighten standards and regulate more products

. Appendix Table A

- 6 is a list of CARB ‘s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990

.

Appendix Table A

- 6 

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 40 Appendix Table A

- 6 

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products

. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aer osol coating products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310)

. T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/16 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products.
Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.
Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures) Amendments

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program)

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Voluntary compliance option

. No action.
Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the amendment of CARB Method 310 11/19/98 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for test method 310 and 11/17/06 rule for rest.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 41 Appendix Table A

- 6 

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

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

- Term Measures II

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products

. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule
Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values

. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para

Dicholorobenzene

. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date of 5/6/05)

Consumer Products

. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date 9/16/07)



### F

. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), C ARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from ga soline marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations

. State law also authorizes C ARB, in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods

. The insta llation and operation of C ARB

- certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622

. Appendix Table A

- 7 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by C ARB since 19 90 that address vapor recovery equipment certification, defects, and/or test methods.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 42 Appendix Table A

- 7 

### Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95

C ARB sets requirements for and certifies vapor recovery equipment. District rules establish requirements for the installation of C ARB

- certified equipment. See SJVAPCD Rules 4621 & 4622 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 incorporate d test procedures, CP

- 201, TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects

. T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing

. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List

. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension

. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 43 Appendix Table A

- 7 

### Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST)

. T 17 , CCR, 94010

, 94011

, 94016 and 94168 and incorporated documents 06/21/07

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List

. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A



### G

. Other State Measures

A number of C ARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in A ppendix Tables A

- 2 through A

- 7

. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A

- 8

.

Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from Sterilizers & Aerators

. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Covered by District Rule 7021

. E missions in category are less than 0.01 tpd VOC
Controls for Abrasive Blasting

. T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Small source category in SJV < 0.1 tpd PM 2.5
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from N on

- 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 address es 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)TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 44 Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip ment Refinishing Coatings C ontaining Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds

. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Air toxic control measures prohibit additives with hexavalent chromium

. Total emissions CA are less than 300 lb per year

. ISOR, p. V

- 2.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Minimal impact, few units certified

. See ISOR for 9/28/06 rule amendment

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning

. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 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 Stationary Compression Ignition Engines

. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate by reference 2/26/04 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 Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying

. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Air toxic control measures

. Total emissions (chromium & nickel in CA are less than 200 lb per year

. ISOR, p. IV

- 6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 3/17/05 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.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 3 0, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 45 Appendix Table A

- 8 

### Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations

. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Addition of 2013 standards NO x and VOC standards for DG units which burn waste gas.
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations

. T 17, CCR, 93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Air toxic control measures

. Total emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per
year

. ISOR, p. 49.

### Appendix B

– SJVAPCD RulesAppendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4101 Visible Emissions 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 70 FR 46770 (8/11/05) Baseline measure

4103 Open Burning 4/15/2010 4/15/2010 4/15/2010
5/17/2007 NPR: 76 FR

40660 (7/11/11)
74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) Control strategy measure

.

4104 Reduction of Animal Matter 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) Baseline measure

4105 Commercial Offsite Multi

- User Hazardous and Non

- Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities 12/17/1992 N/A N/A N/A O dor rule only

4106 Prescribed Burning 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02) Feasibility study completed in 2008

. No

additional rulemaking.

4201 Particulate matter concentrations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 67 FR 16026 (4/4/02) Baseline measure

4202 Particulate matter emission rates 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 65 FR 21347 (4/21/00) Baseline measure

4203 Particulate Matter Emissions from Incineration of Combustible Refuse 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A no action Baseline measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 1 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4204 Cotton Gin 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 71 FR 65740 (11/08/06) Baseline measure

F easibility study measure, PM 2.5 , (2009)

4301 Fuel Burning Equipment 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 26876 (5/18/1999) Baseline measure

4302 Incinerator Burning 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) Baseline measure

4303 Orchard Heaters 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) Baseline measure

4304 Equipment Turning Procedures for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 66 FR 5766 (11/16/01) Baseline measure

4305 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

- Phase 2 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Baseline measure

4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

- Phase 3 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strategy measure

4307 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

- 2.0 MM BTU/hr to 5.0 MMBTU/hr 5/19/2011 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strategy measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 2 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4308 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

- 0.75 MM BTU/hr to 2.0 MMBTU/hr 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 76 FR 5276 ( 1/31/11 ) Control strategy measure

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators and Ovens 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) Baseline measure

F easibility study measure, PM 2.5 & ozone (2011)

4311 Flares 6/18/2009 6/18/2009 NPR: 6/18/2009
6/20/2002 76 FR 52623

(8/23/11)
68 FR 8835 (2/26/03) Control strategy measure.

4313 Lime Kilns 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 68 FR 52510 (9/4/2003) Baseline measure

F easibility study measure, PM 2.5 & ozone (2011)

4320 Advanced Emission Reduction Option for Boilers 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 76 FR 16696 (3/25/11) Control strategy measures. No emissions

reductions credit allowed.

4351 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

- RACT 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Baseline measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 3 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 75 FR 60623 (10/1/10) Limited approval/disapproval

S

- COM

- 4

- F easibility study measure, ozone & PM 2.5 (2009)

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 4/19/2011 9 /16/20 10 9 /16/20 10
8/17/2006 76 FR 37044,

(6/ 24 / 11 )
72 FR 41894 (8/01/07) Control strategy measure.

4401 Steam

- Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells 6/16/2011 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 75 FR 3996 (1/26/10) VOC measure

Limited approval/disapproval

4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A 76 FR 298 (1/0 4 / 11 ) VOC measure

Limited approval/disapproval

4403 Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) VOC measure

4404 Heavy Oil Test Station

– Kern 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) VOC measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 4 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4405 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Existing Steam Generators (Central and Western Kern County) 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A

4406 Sulfur Compounds from Oilfield Steam Generators

- Kern 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A

4407 In

- situ Combustion Well Vents 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 60 FR 12121 (3/6/95) VOC controls

4408 Glycol Dehydration Systems 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 68 FR 51187 (8/26/03)

4409 Components at Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) VOC measure

4451 Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges, Threaded Connections and Process Drains at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) VOC measure

Rule incorporated into Rule 4455TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 5 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4452 Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum Refiners 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) VOC measure

Rule incorporated into Rule 4455

4453 Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems 12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08)
withdrawn VOC measure

4454 Refinery Process Turnaround 12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08)
withdrawn VOC measure

4455 Components at Refineries 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) VOC measure

4501 Alternate Compliance for BARCT 6/17/1999 6/17/1999 N/A no action

4550 Conservation Management Practices 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 7683 (2/14/06) Baseline measure

F easibility study measure, PM 2.5 (2012)

4565 Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 3/15/2007 3/15/2007 N/A no action VOC measure

4566 Organic Waste N/A N/A N/A N/A New rule for green waste

.

4570 Confined Animal Facilities 10/21/2010 6/18/5/2009 6/18/2009 75 FR 2079 (1/14/10) VOC measure

Limited approval/disapproval

.TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 6 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4601 Architectural Coatings 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009
10/31/2001 NPR 76 FR 35167

(6/16/11 )
69 FR 34 (1/02/04) VOC measure

Limited approval/disapproval

- no sanction clock (disapproved elements expired)

4602 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009
12/20/2001 NPR: 76 FR 3214

(6/3/11)
67 FR 42999 (6/26/02) VOC measure

4603 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 9/17/20 10 9/17/20 10 9/17/2010
10/16/2008 NPR: 76 FR 3214

(6/3/11)
75 FR 4612 (1/19/ 1 0) VOC measure

4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) VOC measure

4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating 6/16/2011 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 3996 (1/26/10) VOC measure

Limited approval/disapproval

4606 Wood Products Coating Operations 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 528 94 (10/15/09) VOC measure

4607 Graphic Arts 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 74 FR 528 94 (10/15/09) VOC measure

4610 Glass Coating Operations 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 69 FR 60962 (10/14/04) VOC measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 7 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4612 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations

– Phase 2 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) VOC measure

4621 Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09) VOC measure

4622 Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicles 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09) VOC measure

4623 Storage of Organic Liquids 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 70 FR 53937 (9/13/05) VOC measure

4624 Transfer of Organic Liquids 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) VOC measure

4625 Wastewater Separators 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08)
withdrawn VOC measure

4641 Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt Paving and Maintenance Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) VOC measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 8 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4642 Solid Waste Disposal Site 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 66 FR 38939 (7/26/01) VOC measure

4651 Soil Decontamination Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09) VOC measure

4652 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A N o sources

4653 Adhesives 9/1 6 /20 10 9/1 6 /20 10 9/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) VOC measure

4661 Organic Solvents 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 24406 (5/5/2010) VOC measure

4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) VOC measure

4663 Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) VOC measure

4672 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) VOC measure

4681 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 63 FR 43881 (8/17/98) VOC measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 9 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 1994 60 FR 31086 (6/13/95) VOC measure

4684 Polyester Resin Operations 6/16/2011 9/17/2009 9/20/2007 75 FR 3996 (1/26/10) VOC measure

Limited approval/disapproval

4691 (461.02) Vegetable Oil

Processing Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 59 FR 2535 (1/18/94) VOC measure

4692 Commer c ial Charbroiling 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009
3/21/2002 NPR: 76 FR

38340 (6/30/11)
68 FR 33005 (6/03/03) Control strategy measure.

4693 Bakery Ovens 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 69 FR 22441 (4/26/04) VOC measure

4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 N/A no action VOC measure

4695 Brandy and Wine Aging 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 NPR: 76 FR 33181 (6/8/11) VOC measure

4701 I/C Engines

- Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Baseline measureTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 10 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4702 I/C Engines

- Phase 2 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08) Control strategy measure

S cheduled adoption August 2011

4703 Stationary Gas Turbines 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 53888 (10/21/09) Control strategy measure

4801 Sulfur Compounds 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 no action

4802 Sulfuric Acid Mist 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 30396 (6/08/99) Baseline measure

Limited approval/disapproval

- No sanction clock

4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) Control strategy measure

4902 Residential Water Heaters 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 75 FR 24408 (5/5/10) Control strategy measure

4905 Natural Gas

- fired, fan

type, residential central furnaces 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) Additional revisions scheduled for 2014 per

PM 2.5 plan commitment

8011 Fugitive Dust General Requirements 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earthmoving Activities 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measuresTSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page C

- 11 Appendix Table B

- 1 

### Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules June 1 6 , 201 1

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of

Most Recent Rule Submitted Date of

Most Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

8031 Bulk Materials 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

8041 Carryout and Trackout 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

8051 Open Areas 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

8061 Paved and Unpaved Roads 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

8071 Unpaved Vehicle/ Equipment Traffic Areas 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

8081 Agricultural Sources 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline measures

9310 School Bus 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 75 FR 10420 (3/8/10) Baseline measure

9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 N/A no action Control strategy measure. Submitted May 17, 2010 (complete June 8, 2010)

9510 Indirect Source Review 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 7 6 FR 26609 (5 /9/11 ) No emissions reduction credit allowed.