Technical Support Document

and Responses to Comments

Final Rule on the

San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation Plan

Air Division

U.S. EPA Region 9

September 30, 2011
For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Frances Wicher

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

(415) 972-3957

wicher.frances@epa.gov

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

rulemaking, docket no. EPA-R09-OAR-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 (PM2.5) 1

1. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1

a. Level and Form of the Standard 1

b. Health Effects 2

c. Revisions to the 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards 2

2. Implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS 2

a. Designations 2

b. PM2.5 Planning Requirements 3

B. PM2.5 Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley 5

1. PM2.5 Levels in the San Joaquin Valley 6

2. Seasonality and Chemical Composition of PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 7

C. California‘s Submittals Constituting the SJV PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 11

D. Public Notice and Hearing 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 PM2.5 SIP

A. Emissions Inventories 16

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 16

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 17

3. Proposed Actions on Emissions Inventory 18

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 18

B. Air Quality Modeling 22

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 22

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 Attainment Test 40

l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 42

m. Weight of Evidence 43

3. Conclusions 45

4. Pollutant Ratios Used to Determine PM2.5 Equivalency 46

5. Effect of Inventory Changes on the Air Quality Modeling and Attainment 

Demonstrations 48

C. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 51

1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5 Precursors 51

2. Identification of PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP 70

a. District RACM/RACT Analysis 71

b. Local Jurisdictions‘ 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 Extension 79

1. Requirements for Attainment Date Extensions 79

2. Proposed Attainment Date in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 measures 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan 111

3. Proposed Actions on the Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 115

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 115

H. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 117

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 117

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 118

3. Proposed Actions on the RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 120

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 120

I. Contingency Measures 126

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 126

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP 130

4. Evaluation and Conclusions 130

a. New Commitment 131

b. General Surplus Reductions in the 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 PM2.5 SIP 137

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 137

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 138

a. MVEB Submitted in SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan (submitted June 2008) 138

b. Updated MVEB Submitted in 2011 138

3. EPA‘s Actions on the MVEB in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP 141

a. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 141

b. Proposed Action on the MVEBs in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 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. Baseline 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 PM2.5 or PM2.5 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 Recovery 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 Clean 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

CEIDARS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System

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

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds

CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality [model]

CMB: chemical 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: elemental carbon

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration

Fine particulate: PM2.5

FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program

FR: Federal Register

FRM: Federal Reference Method

FTA: Federal Transit Administration

HNO3: 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

MMPA: meteorological model performance analysis

MOZART: Model for Ozone And Related Chemical Tracers

MPO: metropolitan planning organization

MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget

NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard

NH3: ammonia

NH4NO3: ammonium nitrate

NO2: nitrogen dioxide

NOx: oxides of nitrogen

NSR: new source review

NYQ: not yet quantified

O3: ozone

OC: organic carbon

OH: hydroxyl radical

OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality

PBL: planetary boundary layer

PM: particulate matter

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

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

PMC: coarse particulate matter

PMF: positive matrix factorization

RACM: reasonably available control measures

RACT: reasonably available control technology

RFP: reasonable further progress

RMD: Receptor Modeling Documentation

RMPA: Regional Modeling Performance Analysis

RRF: relative response factor

RTP: regional transportation plan

SANDWICH: Sulfate, 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 Attainment Test

SO2: sulfur dioxide

SOA: secondary organic aerosol

STN: Speciation Trends Network

SOx: oxides of sulfur

TCM: transportation control measures

tpd: tons per day

TIP: transportation improvement program

TSD: technical support document
List of Acronyms

vii

VMT: vehicle 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan (adopted 

April 30, 2008 and revised on June 17, 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 24, 2009 and April 28, 2011). 

EPA proposed action on these plans on November 30, 2010 (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.1In this TSD, we also provide our responses to 

the comments received on the two proposals. 

A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate (PM2.5)

1. The PM2.5 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 

PM2.5, particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. 62 FR 38652.2The annual

standards are set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μ/m3), as determined by the 3-year 

average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. The 24-hour standards were set at a level of 

65 μ/m3, 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 

PM2.5 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. ―Technical Support 

Document for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 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 ―2011 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 PM10) were established in 1987. 52 FR 24663 (July 1, 1987). In the 1997 PM 

NAAQS revision, EPA also revised the standards for PM10 but these revised PM10 standards were later vacated by 

the courts and the 1987 PM10 standards remained in effect. In the 2006 NAAQS revision, the 24-hour PM10

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 PM10 NAAQS. See 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2009).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 2

b. Health Effects

EPA established primary air quality standards for PM2.5 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 PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important 

health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure include aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, 

absences from school or work, and restricted 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 standards is estimated to lead to reductions in health 

impacts, including tens of thousands 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

72 FR 20586, 20587 (April 25, 2007).

c. Revisions to the 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards

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

the primary standards, the 24-hour PM2.5 standards are strengthened to a level of 35 μ/m3, based 

on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. The annual standards

remain unchanged. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). Attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 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 respiratory illnesses in children annually. 

72 FR 20586, 20587.

2. Implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS

a. Designations

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

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

governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the 

appropriate boundaries for areas, to EPA. Under CAA section 107, state and tribal 

recommendations are due within one year of promulgation 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 PM2.5 standards, however, Congress amended section 107 

to extend the schedule for EPA 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 PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999 and deployed all 

air quality monitors by January 2001. As a result, the designation process for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS did not begin until 2004.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 3

By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, EPA is required to notify 

states or tribes of any intended modifications to their boundaries that EPA deems necessary. 

States and tribes then have an opportunity to provide a demonstration as to why the proposed 

modifications suggested by EPA are inappropriate. CAA section 107(d(1)(B)(ii). Whether or not 

a state or tribe provides a recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems 

appropriate.

In April 2003, EPA requested that California submit its designation recommendations, 

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 PM2.5 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 81, subpart C.3

The designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process whereby a state or tribe 

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 PM2.5 , states have up to three years after final designations to submit 

their SIPs to EPA. The SIPs for the 1997 PM2.5 SIP were due on April 5, 2008, three years after

the effective date of the designations.

b. PM2.5 Planning Requirements

In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address their PM2.5 nonattainment 

problem, EPA issued the Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, also known as the 

PM2.5 implementation rule. 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart Z. 

We proposed this rule on November 1, 2005 at 70 FR 65984. We issued this rule in accordance 

with the statutory requirements of the CAA set forth in subpart 1 of Part D of Title 1, i.e., 

sections 171–179B.

The PM2.5 implementation rule covers most CAA requirements for PM2.5 state 

implementation plans. A list of these CAA requirements, the corresponding provision in the 

PM2.5 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 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 74 FR 58688. California is now required to submit a plan 

demonstrating attainment of the 35 μg/m324-hour standards by December 14, 2012. 74 FR 58688, 58689. The 2008 

PM2.5 Plan we are reviewing in this TSD addresses only the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards of 65 μg/m3and annual 

standards of 15 μg/m3.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 4

Table IA-1

CAA Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment State Implementation Plans

CAA 

Section

PM2.5 Implementation Rule

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 Demonstration 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 inventory 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) § 51.1002(b) 20600 CAA section 110(a)(2) 

requirements N/A

172(c)(9) § 51.1012 20642-20645

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain or make reasonable further 

progress

II.J.

302(g) § 51.1002(c) 20589-20597 PM2.5 precursors to be evaluated for 

control II.C.

172(c)(1) § 51.1007(b) 20629 Timing of emissions reductions for 

attainment

II.D. & 

F.

176(c) § 93.118(e)(4) 20645-20646 Motor 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5

implementation rule. See Earthjustice, ―Petition for Reconsideration in the Matter of the Final 

Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, EPA Docket No. OAR-2003-0062,‖ 

June 25, 2007. These provisions are:

1. Presuming that compliance with the (now remanded) Clean Air Interstate Rule satisfies 

the NOx and SO2 RACT requirements for electric generating units (EGUs). 72 FR 20586,

20623-20628. 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 states to defer establishing emissions 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 light of benefits. 

72 FR 20586, 20619-20620. EPA granted the petition for this provision on April 25, 

2011. 

4. Allowing states 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 13, 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 PM2.5 implementation rule are, for the most part, not 

relevant to today‘s action because California did not rely on them in developing the PM2.5 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. PM2.5 Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 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. Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it

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

south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the east. In total, the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area 

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

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

Figure IB-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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 6

1. PM2.5 Levels in the San Joaquin Valley

Annual and 24-hour PM2.5 levels in the urban Bakersfield area in the southern SJV are 

the highest recorded in the United States at 21.2 μg/m3and 65 μg/m3for the 2008-2010 period.4

Since comprehensive monitoring began for PM2.5 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 IB-2. Between 2005 and 2008, PM2.5 concentrations increased 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 PM2.5 NAAQS is 15 μg/m3 

 

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 using a specific methodology from 

monitored air quality data and is used to compare an area‘s air quality to a NAAQS. The methodologies for 

calculating design values for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are found in 40 CFR 50, Appendix N,

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

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 7

Figure IB-2

Source: EPA‘s Air Quality Systems Database, June 2011. The level of 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 65 

μg/m3.

2. Seasonality and Chemical Composition of PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley

PM2.5 in the air is a complex mixture of components. Common components include: 

nitrate (NO3); sulfate (SO4); 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 from 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 NOx, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. 

Understanding the compounds that make up an area‘s PM2.5 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 PM2.5 in the ambient air vary by season. See

Figures IB-4 to IB-7; see also SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report, Figure A-7. Higher PM2.5

concentrations occur during the winter, between late November and February, when ambient 

PM2.5 is dominated by ammonium nitrate, formed from NOx and ammonia emissions, and 

directly-emitted particulates, such as wood smoke. During the winter, the SJV experiences 

extended periods of stagnant weather with cold, damp, foggy conditions; conditions that are 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 8

conducive to the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate particulates and encourage wood 

burning. During the summer, PM2.5 levels generally remain below 15 μg/m3, the level of the 

annual standards

Figure 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 9

Figures IB-4

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H-5.

Figure IB-5

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H-4.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 10

Figure IB-7

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H-6.

Figure IB-8

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H-7.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 11

C. California’s Submittals Constituting the SJV PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan

Six submittals or parts of submittals comprise the SJV PM2.5 attainment state 

implementation plan. We will refer to these five submittals or parts of submittals collectively as 

the SJV PM2.5 [attainment] SIP:

1. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, adopted on April 30, 2008 by the SJVUAPCD 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 PM2.5 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 referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice as the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 referenced 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, 2009.5See CARB 

Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 

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

notice as the 2009 State Strategy Status Report.

4. 2008 PM2.5 Plan Amendment to Extend the Rule 4905 Amendment Schedule, adopted on 

June 17, 2010 by the SJVUAPCD, 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, 

September 15, 2010, with enclosures.

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

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

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

 

5

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

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

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 12

documentation by CARB on May 18, 2011.

6

See CARB Resolution No. 11-24, 

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

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

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

Progress Report.

6. 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM2.5

State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, adopted on July 21, 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.7This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal 

Register notice as the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions.

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

and the 2008 PM2.5 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 otherwise.

In addition to these plan submittals, the District and CARB have provided information on 

the implementation status of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP‘s control strategy. CARB also provided 

supplemental documentation of the air quality modeling and further analysis of the effectiveness

of VOC controls for reducing PM2.5 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 Frances 

Wicher, Office of Air Planning, EPA Region 9, January 28, 2011 providing supplemental 

air quality modeling documentation (CARB modeling supplement).

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 PM2.5 Precursor for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP).‖ (CARB VOC supplement)

3. SJVAPCD, 2008 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report, Draft March 2011 (SJV PM2.5 Progress 

Report).

 

6

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

the report is for informational purposes only. See May 18, 2011 Goldstene Letter.

7

 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions is submitted as a SIP revision; the 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 PM2.5 SIP 

transportation budgets here. We will act on the 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 

supplement).

Finally, 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 PM2.5

NAAQS in the area. See Appendices A and B of this TSD.

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

Submittals

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals

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

hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and a public 

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

Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan. The 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 PM2.5 SIP, April 25, 2008. 

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

Plan. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board 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 PM2.5 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 Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation 

Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 and CARB

Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009.

CARB provide the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public 

hearing prior to its April 28, 2011 adoption of the 2011 Progress Report and its July 21, 2011 

adoption of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider the 

Approval of a Progress Report and Proposed State Implementation Plan Revisions for PM2.5, 

March 29, 2011 and CARB Resolution No. 11-24, April 28, 2011 and CARB, Notice of Public 

Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 14

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

Minor Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2011.

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

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

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

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

law six months after the day of submittal. A completeness review allows us to determine if the 

submittal includes all the necessary items and information we need to act on it.

We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information 

and technical support information. The administrative information provides documentation that 

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

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

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

maintenance of the air quality standards.

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

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

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

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

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 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 complete on June 13, 

2011. See letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, CARB, June 13, 2011. 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 PM2.5 SIP
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 16

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

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 PM2.5 implementation rule requires a state to submit, 

within three years of the designation of one of its areas as nonattainment, statewide emissions 

inventories of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. These inventories should meet the data 

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 PM2.5 includes condensable PM. 

40 CFR § 51.1000. PM2.5 precursors are NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. Id. The 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 PM2.5 implementation rule also requires a state to submit a baseline emissions 

inventory as part of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in its PM2.5 attainment plan. The 

base year for this inventory should be calendar year 2002 or other suitable year for areas initially 

designated nonattainment for the PM2.5 in 2004-2005. 40 CFR § 51.1008(b). The baseline 

inventory should be appropriate for the geographical area addressed by the PM2.5 attainment plan 

and consistent with applicable EPA guidance. 72 FR 20586, 20648. A state is also required to 

submit any additional emissions inventory information needed to support its attainment and RFP 

demonstrations. 72 FR 20586, 20648 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(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–05–001, 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 inventories for 8-hour 

ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs.

The emissions inventories required under the PM2.5 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 hearing requirements pursuant to sections 110(a)(2) and (l). A state 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 planning 

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 (AERR) 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 NOX SIP Call (which 

does not apply to California). Because this AERR was not finalized until after the submittal of the SJV PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 17

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP

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

emissions inventories in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. We are not acting on the statewide inventory 

here.

CARB submitted statewide inventories for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors (except for 

ammonia) as part of the 2007 State Strategy. See Appendix A for the emissions inventory output 

tables and Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory. Inventories are provided 

for 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 2023.9These statewide emissions inventories are 

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

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

System (CEFS) databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F.

The inventories in Appendix A are summer season planning inventories on which the 

2007 State Strategy is based. Baseline inventories incorporate reductions from control measures 

adopted prior to December 2006. 2008 PM2.5 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 the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

The planning inventories for direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 precursors (including ammonia) 

for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories 

are found in Appendix B of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 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 PM2.5 days in the SJV occur during the winter months between November and 

February. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figures H-4 and H-5. The inventories use EMFAC2007 for 

estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions. 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan‘s inventories, the District used CARB‘s 2002 

inventory. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1. The 2002 inventory was projected to 2005 and future years 

using CEFSv 1.06. 2008 PM2.5 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 into the air quality modeling do include such sources. 2008 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 standards; therefore, 

baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for PM2.5 plans but also ones of importance for 8-

hour ozone plans.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 18

3. Proposed Actions on Emissions Inventory

In our November 2010 and July 2011 proposed actions on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP, we 

proposed to find that the 2002 emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5

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 PM2.5

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 74518, 74522; 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.A.; and 76 FR 41338, 41342.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

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

time as the draft 2007 State Strategy and 2008 PM2.5 Plan 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 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 3.

The SJV PM2.5 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 

Appendix B and air quality modeling documentation in Appendices E-G of the Plan, it contains 

all the elements required by EPA‘s emissions inventory guidance.

The inventories in the SJV PM2.5 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), address comprehensively all source categories in the SJV, and meet the 

applicable requirements of EPA‘s inventory guidance. 

For these reasons, EPA is approving the 2005 base year emissions inventory in the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1).

We also find that the baseline inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP provide an adequate basis for the 

reasonably available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment 

demonstrations.

We received a number of comments on our proposed approval of the emissions 

inventory. We have reviewed these comment and provided responses 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 PM2.5 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 an economic recession that 

greatly reduced and continues to affect the level of activity 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 substantially lower than were projected in 2008 

SJV PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 19

These recession-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 technical changes to the inventory for diesel trucks and buses as part of 

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

included updates and revisions to:

regional allocation factors

out-of-state vehicle miles traveled estimates

new vehicle inventory categories

lifetime mileage assumptions

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

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

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

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

included updates and revisions to:

equipment population

hours of use

load factors

future equipment sales and activity

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

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

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

CARB estimates that these technical revisions reduce the total 2005 base year NOx and 

PM2.5 inventory by approximately 6 percent of the NOx 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 considered the potential effects of the revisions to the truck, bus, and offroad equipment emissions inventory categories on the approvability of the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations in the Plan and concluded they do not adversely affect them. See sections 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 PM2.5 SIP to address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. These revisions are due to EPA 

in December 2012 and will, as required by CAA section 172(c)(3) include the latest updates to 

the emissions inventories.
TSD for the Final Rule 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 20

Table A-1

Emissions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

(tons per day)

Annual Average Day Winter Average Day

2005 2009 2012 2014 2005 2009 2012 2014

Direct PM2.5

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 0.8
TSD for the Final Rule 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 21

Table A-1

Emissions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 22

B. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling

The PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 justified 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 modeling should be consistent with EPA‘s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance.10

See also 72 FR 20586, 20665.

Air quality modeling is used to establish emission attainment targets, a combination of 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that the area can accommodate without 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze.‖

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan uses multiple modeling analyses to demonstrate attainment of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. It mainly relies on several variants of an approach based on receptor 

modeling for the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This approach begins with Chemical Mass Balance 

(CMB) modeling, which distinguishes the ambient PM2.5 contributions of several broad 

emissions source categories based on how they match the chemical species components of PM2.5

measurements. The CMB results are then refined with emissions 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 Models‖ 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 23

secondarily formed PM2.5 will respond to changes in precursor emissions. Several variants of this 

approach are used, with CMB results from different locations and different base case years. This 

modeling only addresses the annual PM2.5 standard.

The Plan also includes an attainment demonstration 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 PM2.5 standards. 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 supplemented 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 attainment would also provide sufficient emissions reductions 

for 24-hour standard attainment. At the time the Plan was prepared in 2006, ambient data for 

PM2.5 was consistent with attainment of the 24-hour NAAQS. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix A, 

Table A-9.

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan discusses air 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 PM2.5 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 documentation 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 PM2.5

Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy,‖ California Air 

Resources Board, January 28, 2011, including Appendices A through D (hereafter, CARB 

modeling supplement).

A conceptual model of PM2.5 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 Evidence 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 

basis for the PM2.5 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: VOC as a PM2.5 plan precursor in SJV, found in the 

docket for this rule.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 24

a. Conceptual Description

A conceptual description is a qualitative way of characterizing 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 choice of air quality model, modeling domain, grid 

cell size, priorities for quality assuring and refining emissions estimates, and the choice of initial 

diagnostic tests to identify potentially effective control strategies. In general, a conceptual 

description is useful for helping a state to identify priorities and allocate resources in performing 

a modeled attainment demonstration.

The Guidance 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 PM2.5

3. most prevalent components of measured PM2.5

4. components of measurements versus emissions

5. areas with large gradients

6. indications of limiting precursor for secondary 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 indicators 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 other and other pollutants

The Plan contains ample discussion of the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 and Environmental Research, Inc. This paper has conclusions 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 25

In brief, the PM2.5 problem 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. PM2.5 concentrations are much higher in winter than in summer. 

Concentrations in April through September are generally less than 15 μg/m3, 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 highest 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 PM2.5 in the SJV is ammonium nitrate, formed from the 

abundant ammonia emissions in this agricultural area and NOx emissions from on-road motor 

vehicles, other mobile sources, and various fuel-combustion stationary sources. Ammonium 

nitrate formation is enhanced 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 HNO3 (nitric acid) formation via 

oxidation of NOx, rather by the availability of ammonia. In addition to ammonium nitrate, 

organic carbon (OC) can also be a significant component of PM2.5. The main sources of OC are 

agricultural vegetative burning, residential wood combustion, other direct sources such as 

vehicles, 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 PM2.5 episodes. This gradient was explained as being due to the greater 

vehicle emissions and residential wood combustion in cities. Ammonium sulfate is a relatively 

small component of secondary PM2.5 in the SJV unlike areas in the eastern part of the United 

States where it is the dominant component of secondary PM2.5.

As discussed at 2008 PM2.5 Plan pages 3-32 and F-39, the annual standard is the focus of 

the modeling analysis because ambient concentrations of PM2.5 in the SJV were below the 24-

hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the development of the Plan. There were thus no 24-hour episodes 

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 the PM2.5 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, conducting model 

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

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

 

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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 26

producing documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office review 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. Participating 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 that 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 necessary

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 PM2.5 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 ―Regional 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 modeling 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 of 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 superior to its alternatives. Thus, 40 CFR 

Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a preferred model for use in attainment demonstrations of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on the language in Appendix W, models used for these purposes 

should meet requirements in the Appendix 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 for the specific application on a theoretical basis,

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

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

the first application, then the state should note why it believes the new model is 

expected to perform sufficiently); and

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

2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s model selection is discussed at p. F-80 and p. G-2, with the 

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model 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 Californiaspecific updates are described in CARB modeling supplement, section 3.2, p.17.

The California-specific updates included: 1) fixing a model bug involving overly large 

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 standard 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 activity 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 changes 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 28

appear to have a reasonable basis, and to have been aimed at improving 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 because the EPA-sponsored CMAQ is 

explicitly mentioned in the Guidance (p. 138) as being a suitable model.

2008 PM2.5 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 well-known and widely-used 

mechanism.

d. Episode Selection

We recommend one of two possible approaches for the modeling the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (Guidance, p. 147):

1) Model every day for a full year (or multiple years). This is recommended for both 

dispersion modeling of primary PM2.5 components and photochemical modeling of 

secondary and primary components. Many areas that violate the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS will also violate the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, full year modeling 

may already exist or is being planned 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 PM2.5 concentrations occur. Similar to modeling for the 

ozone NAAQS, episodes should be selected where PM2.5 concentrations are greater 

than the NAAQS (in this case, the 1997 standard of 65 μg/m3) and are close to the 

baseline design value. Also similar to ozone modeling, data analyses can be 

completed to help select a variety of meteorological episodes which lead to high 

PM2.5 concentrations. In some cases, there may be very limited conditions which 

lead to high 24-hour average PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan‘s episode 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, although 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 to 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 29

choose and examine these 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 

been scaled by a modeled RRF that reflects emissions reductions, and so the predicted 24-hour 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 domain. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall into this category. The modeling domain 

should be designed so that all major upwind source areas that influence the downwind 

nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The influence of boundary conditions 

should be minimized to the extent possible. Guidance, p. 153.

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 implementing 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, large 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 of 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; 

alignment 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 model 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 PM2.5 Plan‘s modeling domain 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 measures 320 by 356 km (80 by 89 grid cells). This inner domain is nested within 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 from 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 processes 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 period of interest to diminish the importance of initial conditions. The 

recommended ramp-up period is at least 5-10 days for PM2.5. 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 initial 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 Chemical Tracers (MOZART). 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 PM2.5 Plan has a table of annual 

average boundary conditions for the various chemical species; there is no information 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). Conditions 

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 

meteorological fields be shared with the appropriate EPA regional office(s) prior to conducting 

the air quality modeling analysis. Guidance, p. 161.

2008 PM2.5 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 the model choice is adequately justified.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5. 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 grid cells are to be used in 

the fine portion of a nested regional air quality model, then the meteorological fields at this detail 

would need to extend 12-24 km beyond the bounds of the 4 km grid used for air quality 

predictions. In terms of grid resolution, EPA recommends that the dynamic meteorological 

models use the same grid resolution as desired for the air quality model applications. In some 

cases, however, this may not always be feasible. One possible reason for modeling with 

meteorology using a different grid resolution is in the case of unacceptable model performance 

from the meteorological model at the desired grid resolution. In other instances, the need for 

finer resolution may be emissions-driven more than meteorologically-driven and the costs do not 

warrant the generation of additional resolution in the meteorological data. In these specific 

situations it is recommended that the air quality model application use available results from 

meteorological models on the next coarser scale (i.e., 36 km for a desired 12 km estimate, 12 km 

for a desired 4 km estimate). The coarse grid meteorological fields can be mapped to the more 

finely resolved air quality modeling domain.

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 determined without performing an initial series of sensitivity 

tests which consider various combinations of physics options over specific time periods and 

regions. While these tests may not ultimately conclude that any one configuration is clearly 

superior at all times and in all areas, it is recommended that these sensitivity tests be completed, 

as they should lead to a modeling analysis that is best-suited for the domain and period being 

simulated. Typically, the model configuration which yields predictions that provide the best 

statistical match with observed data over the most cases (episodes, regions, etc.) is the one that 

should be chosen, although other more qualitative information can also be considered. 

Additionally, model configurations should be designed to account for the pollutants and time 

periods that are of most interest. 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 that properly handles snow covered fields and their effects on 

boundary layer humidities and temperatures.

2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s meteorological model setup is discussed at p. F-81 and p. G-4 and in 

the appendix ―Meteorological 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 and 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 33

The 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 processes 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 were 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 of the Three Nested Grids Designed to Study the 

Meteorology And Air Quality in the SJV Domain

Source: 2008 PM2.5 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 the 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 states 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 

approximation 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 phenomenological assessment (i.e., generally qualitative 

comparisons of observed features versus their depiction in the model data). Guidance, p. 163.

Operational Evaluation (Guidance, p. 163): The operational evaluation results should 

focus on the values and distributions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and 

compared to observed data. It is recommended that the observation-model matching be paired as 

closely as possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparisons of the key meteorological 

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 large 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 strengths and weaknesses.

Phenomenological Evaluation (Guidance, p. 167): Within the conceptual description of a 

particular modeling exercise, EPA recommends that a state identify 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 formation and transport within the scope of a specific 

analysis. It is expected that this event-oriented evaluation will need to summarize model 

performance in terms of statistical metrics such as probability of detection and false alarm rate. 

As an example of a potential phenomenological analysis, many regional air quality modeling 

exercises attempt to assess the effects of transport of emissions from one area to a downwind 

area with an intent to establish source-receptor relationships. For these types of modeling 

analyses, accurate transport wind trajectories are needed to properly establish these sourcereceptor linkages. In this type of model application, a useful event-based meteorological 

evaluation would be to compare model-derived trajectories versus those based on ambient data to 

determine what error distance can be associated with the model fields.

2008 SJV Plan‘s meteorological model performance is discussed in the appendix 

―Meteorological 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 for 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 ―Meteorological Model Performance 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 plots 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 evaluation 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 observations 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. The 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 patterns.‖ 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 fiveday 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 reasonably 

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 

concentrations. 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 (PBL). 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 assessment 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 

observed; and overall flow patterns were replicated well.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 temperature, 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 into 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 PM2.5 formation in the SJV are adequately captured in the 

meteorological modeling, including for various locations and times of year. 

i. Emissions Inventory

Air quality modeling requires emissions 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 needs to compile base-year inventories for its modeling 

region (e.g., the states and tribes in the modeling grid). For PM model applications, emissions

inventories should include emissions of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC (speciated), NOx, 

carbon monoxide, SO2, NH3, PM2.5 (speciated), and PM coarse (PMC). Second, modelers must 

collect ancillary data associated with the inventories, which prescribes the spatial, temporal, and 

chemical speciation information about the emissions inventory. Third, modelers use the ancillary 

data for emissions modeling. Emissions models spatially, temporally, chemically, and vertically 

allocate emissions inventories 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 inventories to the future year, and then use an emissions model to prepare that 

future year inventory data for input to the air quality model. Fifth, emissions inventories that 

reflect the emissions reductions needed for attainment will have to be prepared for air quality 

modeling.

2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s emissions inputs are discussed at p. G-3, and 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 California 

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 modeling 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 no tables of modeling emissions totals for various pollutants, source groupings, 

subareas, or seasons. There are no maps of emission density or diurnal time series of emissions, 

which could illustrate the spatial and temporal allocation, and help in understanding PM2.5

concentration variations over space and time.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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

PM2.5 consists of many components and is typically measured with a 24-hour averaging 

time. The individual components of PM2.5 should be evaluated individually. In fact, it is more 

important to evaluate the components of PM2.5 than to evaluate total PM2.5 itself. Apparent good 

performance for total PM2.5 does not indicate whether modeled PM2.5 is predicted for the right 

reasons (the proper mix of components). If performance of the major components is good, then 

performance for total PM2.5 should also be good. EPA recommends calculating statistics for 

components of PM2.5, and PM precursors. Useful metrics 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 PM2.5 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 model 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 plots13 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 prioritize 

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/m3for 1997 24-hour PM2.5).

2008 PM2.5 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

 Fractional 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 the 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 and four quarterly averages. Each of these has seven plots, one 

each for total PM2.5, nitrate, sulfate, ammonium, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and dust. (An 

example is included below and shows fourth quarter total PM2.5.) A paragraph on RMPA p. 6 

summarizes the plots, noting that nitrate formation follows the pattern expected from seasonal 

temperature and humidity, although 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 discussion 

of the spatial variation of PM2.5 or its components and how it compares to expectations or to 

monitored values.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 39

Fourth Quarter Average Concentrations for PM2.5

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan Appendix ―Regional Model Performance Analysis,‖ Figure 7, p.11.

Next the RMPA at pp. 12 - 14 discusses statistics 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 PM2.5 total or a component, and shows MFE or MFB plotted against concentration. 

CARB modeling supplement (pp. 24 – 31) shows additional bugle plots, for each calendar 

quarter and each chemical species component of PM2.5 performance criteria were set at MFE ≤ 

75 percent and |MFB| ≤ 60 percent. The RMPA notes that the criteria 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 PM2.5 total and components are plotted against day of the year-long simulation, 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 40

with a fluctuating line showing model prediction, and individual dots showing 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 PM2.5; it 

also has combined bar & line graphs of the monthly 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 overestimation of specific humidity in the meteorological model in the summer (p. 23) EPA 

examination of the plots also suggests that many PM2.5 days are missed at both Bakersfield and 

Fresno, that organic carbon is under predicted (especially at Fresno), and that ammonium is 

under predicted. Sulfate is also often under predicted, but sulfate‘s contribution to PM2.5 levels in 

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 for 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 briefly, 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 other tests. There is little discussion of qualitative assessment of whether the model is 

adequately capturing the various processes leading to high PM2.5 concentration and no 

assessment of spatial variation of model performance, but it is apparent that substantial 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 have 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 PM2.5 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 ratios, relative 

response factors, RRF. Future PM2.5 concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by 

multiplying a modeled relative response factor at locations near each monitor by the observationbased, monitor-specific, baseline design value. The resulting predicted future concentrations are 

compared to NAAQS.

The PM2.5 attainment test reflects the fact that PM2.5 is a mixture. In the test, ambient 

PM2.5 is divided into major species components, so EPA‘s test is called the Speciated Modeled 

Attainment Test (SMAT). These are mass associated with sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, organic 

carbon, elemental carbon, particle bound water, other primary inorganic particulate matter, and 

passively collected mass. Note that FRM monitors do not measure the same components and do 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 41

not retain all of the PM2.5 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 other 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 PM2.5 mass) which may be different than the ambient levels of some PM2.5

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 PM2.5 and its non-organic carbon components. 

This approach is sometimes called SANDWICH, for sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, 

inferred carbonaceous material balance approach. Guidance, p. 47.

A separate RRF is calculated for each of the PM2.5 components (except passive mass). 

We call each of these site-specific ratios, a component-specific RRF. Future PM2.5 design values

are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying modeled relative response factors near 

each monitor times the observed component specific design value. This latter quantity is 

estimated using measured site-specific design values for PM2.5 in concert with available

measured composition data. Future site-specific PM2.5 design values at a site are estimated by

adding the future year values of the seven PM2.5 components. If all future site-specific PM2.5

design values are less than or equal to the concentration specified in the NAAQS, the test is 

passed. Guidance, pp. 15-16.

2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s annual PM2.5 NAAQS attainment test is discussed in Chapter 3, pp. 3-

20 and 2-33, and in Appendix G on ―Regional Air Quality Modeling‖. 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 approach 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 NH4 minus any losses 

associated with fully neutralized nitrate (as NH4NO3) that may have volatilized off the FRM 

filter. 2008 PM2.5 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 

measured 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 PM2.5 Plan. The 2014 controlled design value is seen to be less 

than the annual NAAQS level of 15 μg/m3for every monitor, thus demonstrating attainment. 

The highest 2014 value is 14.7 μg/m3at 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 PM2.5 Plan‘s 24-hour PM2.5 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 are 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 42

already below the 1997 24-hr NAAQS level of 65 μg/m3, the controlled values are, too. The 

highest 2014 value is 46.2 μg/m3at the Bakersfield California Avenue monitor. The Relative 

Reduction Factors are presented in section 5 of the CARB modeling supplement, at pp. 117 -

138.

The attainment tests show attainment of both PM2.5 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 effect 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 quarter. EPA finds the attainment demonstration is adequately documented, 

and that it projects attainment by 2014 for both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 at other locations which could have baseline (and future) 

design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there.

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 that 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 that 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 the 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 model RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields.

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

2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s unmonitored area analysis is discussed on page G-15. It takes the form 

of a simple screening analysis, examination 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 modeling 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 PM2.5 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 14th Street, the location already had a monitor, and modeled results 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 reliable 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 PM2.5 NAAQS violation.

EPA finds that CARB has shown that SJV successfully passes the test in the 

Unmonitored Area Analysis.

m. Weight of Evidence

States should 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. The 

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 contrary 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 inputs, modeling apportionment and process analysis 

tools, alternative metrics (such as change in the number of grid cells above the NAAQS), trends 

in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, receptor modeling, and indicator species approaches.

2008 PM2.5 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‖ (hereafter 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 PM10 speciated measurements from the 

year 2000; this was converted to 2005 PM2.5 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 similar 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 applied 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 24-Hour PM2.5

Future Design 

Value < 14.5 

μg/m3, all monitor 

sites

Future Design 

Value < 62 μg/m3, 

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/m3, at one or 

more sites/grid 

cells

Future Design 

Value 62-67 

μg/m3, 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/m3, at one or 

more sites/grid 

cells

Future Design 

Value > 68 μg/m3, 

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 PM2.5 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. 

Adjustments 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 the response of the atmosphere to changes in NOx

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 exactly 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 results from all these 

adjustments are in Table 3-2, p. 3-22, which lists for each county the 2005 design value, 

―Receptor 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/m3the level of the 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 45

annual NAAQS. The highest 2014 value is 14.09 μg/m3, 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 modeling, 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 approaches 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 analyses. 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 PM2.5

concentrations. Monthly time series (pp. H-7 – H-8) comparing 2001 to 2006 for Bakersfield and 

Fresno show substantial decline in PM2.5 during the winter months (summers remained about the 

same). Histograms (p. H-9) comparing frequency distributions for various concentration ranges 

from the years 1999-2001 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/m3are more of a mixed picture.) Species and total PM2.5 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 series plot for emitted 

species, especially for NOx and for reactive organic gases.

An indicator species analysis plots the Angiola and Fresno winter 2000-2001 

concentrations of NH3 (ammonia) against that of HNO3 (nitric acid). It is the combination of 

these two that forms ammonium nitrate PM2.5. 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 implications for the advisability of 

controls of NOx 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. Conclusions

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan with the CARB modeling supplement adequately documents all the 

elements of a modeled 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 PM2.5 plan for the San Joaquin Valley, including the multimillion dollar CRPAQS study. EPA finds that the modeling is sound and provides an adequate 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 

objecting to our proposed conclusion that the air quality modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Equivalency

The 2011 Progress Report and the SJV PM2.5 Progress Report use a PM2.5 equivalency 

metric in a number of tables and demonstrations. Two ratios are used:

9 tpd NOx to 1 tpd direct PM2.5

1 tpd SOx to 1 tpd direct PM2.5

The NOx:PM2.5 ratio is partly documented in supplemental information provided by 

CARB, entitled ―Precursor Effectiveness,‖ which is available in the 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 domain NOx emissions and in 

direct PM2.5 emissions. These PM2.5 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 PM2.5 effectiveness was divided by the NOx effectiveness to arrive at a 

NOx:PM2.5 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, contingency 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 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 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 assumption of linear ―rollback‖, 

 

14

 EPA is approving the use of this NOx to PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratio to meet CAA planning 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV. EPA is approving the use of this ratio in transportation 

conformity determinations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS but only until such time EPA finds adequate or 

approves budgets developed specifically for the 2006 standard. EPA is not approving the use of this ratio 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 interpollutant trading ratios for EPA‘s approval in a future SIP revision but will, in the 

interim, require project proponents to use the default ratios provided in the preamble to EPA‘s PM2.5 NSR rule (73 

FR 28321, 28339 (May 16, 2008)), until alternative 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 47

and inherently cannot address the complexities of PM2.5 formation chemistry, which is nonlinear. 

It is in contrast to the State‘s approach for the NOx: PM2.5 ratio which used photochemical 

modeling results to take into account such nonlinearity. Even if the ambient PM2.5 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 responsiveness 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 May 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 modeling. 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 confines 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 emissions would 

result in different ratios. Second, it is not clear what emission level to use in the concentration 

per emissions sensitivity ratio. For SOx, 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 reasonable 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 about 3.5. It is not clear 

how any of these ratios relates to actual sensitivity of ambient PM2.5 to emissions changes.

EPA does not find that the approach used by CARB and the District to develop the 

SOx:PM2.5 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 between 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 PM2.5 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 interpollutant trading for any purpose. After reviewing these 

comments, we continue to find that the limited use of the 9:1 NOx to PM2.5 interpollutant trading 

ratio is approvable for transportation conformity purposes. We summarize and respond to these 

comments in section III.D. of this TSD.

5. Effect 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 and 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 substantial 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 percent for NOx and 5 percent for direct PM2.5

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 PM2.5 concentrations 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 

concentrations. 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 49

Table B-2

Changes to Base Year and Attainment Year Emissions Levels

(tons per annual average day)

2005 Base Year 2014 Attainment Year

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

Unrevised from 2008 Plan 575.4 86.0 291.2 63.3

Revised from Progress Report 540 82 291.2 63.3

Change -35.4 -4.0 0.0 0.0

Percent change -6.2% -4.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Notes: 

1. Unrevised 2005 base year emissions from: 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-1

3. Revised 2005 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 Modeling of Base Year Emissions Changes

Site

Plan 

Modeled 

2014 

Design 

Value

2014 DV with 10% 

Additional 

Reductions

Concentration Change

Per % Emission 

Change

Due to Base Year 

Emission Changes

Total

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

Site 1 

(BakersfieldCalifornia)

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 

(BakersfieldGolden)

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 assumes that changes due to the individual pollutants can be added to get total 

change; this assumption is acceptable to 1st order
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

 

EPA- Region 9 Page 50

Table B-4

Effect on Attainment Year Design Value of Base Year Emissions Changes

Site Measured 2006 

Design Value

Fractional 

Effect on 

Design Value

Percent effect 

on Design 

Value

Plan Modeled 

2014 Design 

Value

Scaled 2014 

Design Value

Site 1 

(BakersfieldCalifornia)

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 

(BakersfieldGolden)

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 PM2.5; the measured base year concentration was caused by emissions being lower than 

previously thought; effect is to make it harder to attain. Fractional effect was calculated 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 51

C. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors

1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5 Precursors

EPA recognizes NOx, SO2, VOC, and ammonia as the main precursor gases associated 

with the formation of secondary PM2.5 in the ambient air. These gas-phase precursors undergo 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere to form secondary particulate matter. Formation of 

secondary PM2.5 depends on numerous factors including the concentrations of precursors; the 

concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric conditions including solar 

radiation, temperature, and relative humidity; and the interactions of precursors with preexisting 

particles and with cloud or fog droplets. 72 FR 20586, 20589.

As discussed previously, states must include submit emissions inventories for each of the 

four PM2.5 precursor gases in order to assure the information on all pollutants and precursors that 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations is available. 72 FR 20586, 20589 and 40 CFR § 

51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall contribution of different precursors to PM2.5 formation, and 

the effectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary by location. Thus the 

precursors a state should regulate for attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS will also vary to some extent 

from area to area. 72 FR 20586, 20589.

In the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA did not make a finding that all potential PM2.5

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 

SO2 in addition to sources of direct PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c) and 

(c)(1). A state must also evaluate control measures for sources of NOx unless the state and/or 

EPA determine that control of NOx emissions would not significantly reduce PM2.5

concentrations in the specific nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(2). By contrast, EPA has 

determined in the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 contributor in this context means that a significant reduction in emissions of 

the precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a significant reduction in 

PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586, 20590. Although EPA did not 

establish a quantitative test for determining the significance of such a change, EPA noted that 

even relatively small reductions in PM2.5 levels are estimated to result in worthwhile public 

health benefits. Id.

EPA further explained that a technical demonstration to reverse the presumption for NOx, 

VOC, or NH3 in any area could consider the emissions 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, 20596-20597. These factors 

could 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 PM2.5 implementation rule.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 52

2. Identification of PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

EPA‘s Evaluation

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify the pollutants that have been selected as 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors as this term is defined in 40 CFR § 51.1000. The Plan addresses 

only NOx and SO2 in the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the District‘s RACM/RACT 

analysis and thereby implicitly identifies NOx and SO2, but not VOC and ammonia, as attainment 

plan precursors. It does include supporting documentation for the inclusion of NOx as an 

attainment plan precursor and for the exclusion of ammonia. As discussed below, it has 

conflicting information about the impact of controlling VOC as a precursor for PM2.5 attainment.

However, supplemental information provided by CARB makes clear that the State does not 

consider VOC to be a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and provides supporting documentation 

for that position.

Precursor relationships 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 PM2.5 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-53ff, with the main points repeated in Chapter 3, p. 3-8ff. 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, attachment 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 PM2.5 Plan contains numerous qualitative statements that San 

Joaquin Valley‘s ambient PM2.5 is dominated by ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3), and that NOx

reductions are more effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 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 contributions of precursors to the 24-hour PM2.5 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 CARB website http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways‖. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 

F-59.

For the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 53

For most of the sites within the SJV, 50–75% of the annual average PM2.5

concentration could be attributed to a high PM2.5 period occurring from 

November to January. at non-urban sites, the elevated PM2.5 was driven by 

secondary NH4NO3.

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 Network (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. Ammonium 

nitrate for 2000 monitored data ranges from 24-36 percent of total PM2.5, and if projected to 

2014 ranges from 36-51 percent, confirming the importance of NOx, one source of nitrate, as a 

precursor that significantly contributes to annual PM2.5 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 PM2.5, which is formed from both ammonia 

and NOx, a key issue is the effectiveness of emissions reductions of either or both precursors at 

reducing PM2.5 concentrations. Among the findings cited by the Plan that address this issue are:

―Particulate NH4NO3 concentrations are limited by the rate of HNO3

formation, rather than by the availability of NH3‖

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 NOx emissions will be more effective 

in reducing secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol concentrations than reductions 

in ammonia emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will reduce secondary 

organic aerosol concentrations and may reduce ammonium nitrate.... The results 

indicate ammonium nitrate formation is ultimately controlled by NOx emission 

rates and the other species, including VOCs and background ozone, which control 

the rate of NOx oxidation in winter, rather than by ammonia emissions.

2008 PM2.5 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 ammonia emissions would still leave 

ample ammonia for forming ammonium nitrate. On the other hand, NOx 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 Research Institute.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 Plan states at p. 3-15:

The first regional assessment used the Urban Airshed Model, modified to 

address aerosol chemistry (UAM-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 PM10 receptor 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 modeling estimates for nitrates will be reviewed.

The RMD section on ―Review of control strategy effectiveness supported by CMAQ 

nitrate particulate evaluation‖ shows the projected result of a 50 percent reduction in NOx

emissions on the annual PM2.5 concentration and on PM2.5 concentrations in shorter episodes in 

several seasons. For the annual concentration, the NOx reduction gave a predicted 5 μg/m3PM2.5

reduction, while for the winter episode the predicted reduction was 28 μg/m3for 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 PM2.5 predicted reductions for annual and 

winter were only 0.1 μg/m3and 0.3 μg/m3, respectively. See RMD, p. 81. When compared to the 

annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 and 65 μg/m3, respectively, the effect of NOx reductions 

appear to be significant while the effect of ammonia reductions do not. Thus the data and 

modeling results presented in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as well as the results of the cited studies, 

support the identification of NOx as an attainment plan precursor, and the exclusion of ammonia, 

consistent with the EPA presumption in the PM2.5 implementation rule.

As to VOC, EPA presumption in the PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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 of VOC as a 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor based on the weight of evidence of available technical and 

scientific information. Id.

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains conflicting information on whether, for the SJV 

nonattainment area, VOC should be considered as a potential PM2.5 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 PM2.5. This organic PM2.5 can be 

further divided into vegetative burning (9-19 percent of total annual PM2.5), direct VOC PM2.5

emissions (also 9-19 percent of total annual PM2.5), and secondary organic aerosols (2-5 percent 

of total annual PM2.5). RMD, p. 19. This SOA contribution to overall PM2.5 levels appears to be 

non-negligible.

The Plan states: ―Secondary organic aerosols (SOA) contribute to a significant fraction of 

PM2.5. SOA is organic carbon particulate formed in the photochemical oxidation of 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 55

anthropogenic and biogenic VOC precursor gases. Aromatic compounds are believed to be 

efficient SOA producers contributing to this secondary particulate.‖ 2008 PM2.5 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 winter 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 not enough to overcome the negative presumption for VOC.

But as noted in the preamble to the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 precursor not just via formation of SOA, but also via its 

participation in the oxidant chemistry that leads to nitrate formation, a necessary step in the 

formation of ammonium nitrate PM2.5. NOx emissions must be oxidized to nitric acid (HNO3) 

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 

N2O5 as an intermediary.17

The discussion in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan regarding ammonium nitrate (at p. 3-10, quoted 

above) also refers to VOC, which is identified as one of the controlling factors in NOx oxidation, 

the key process in the formation of nitrate and then ammonium nitrate PM2.5. The Plan also 

stated: ―Relatively low non-methane organic compounds (NMOC)/NOx ratios indicate the 

daytime photochemistry 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 PM2.5 reductions.

Finally, the RMD at page 82 contains sensitivity analyses for VOC, similar to the ones 

described above for NOx and ammonia. According to the sensitivity analysis, the effect of a 50 

percent reduction in VOC emissions was predicted reductions in PM2.5 levels of 1.3 μg/m3for on 

annual basis, and 8.7 μg/m3for the (24-hour) winter episode. When compared to the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3and the 1997 24-hour NAAQS of 65 μg/m3, these projected 

reductions appear significant. The RMD concludes with ―Finding: VOC reduction is effective for 

the annual standard and the winter episode for reduction of total carbon secondary particulates.‖ 

In addition, NOx and VOC reductions may have a synergistic effect, such that the ambient PM2.5

benefit would be more than expected from looking at the pollutants individually. We note that 

this effect could be explored with the CMAQ model, but the hybrid CMB-CMAQ approach used 

in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan would not be suitable for such evaluations.

Despite the above portions of the Plan implicating VOC as an attainment plan 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 PM2.5 as NOx or SO2

reductions,‖ and ―[a]ll of the technical evaluations for CRPAQS and prior assessments of 

regional particulate models have indicated that NOx is the dominant factor and VOC and 

ammonia are not.‖ 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 an 

attainment plan precursor. Supplemental information provided by CARB confirmed this 

conclusion: ―VOC emission reductions are ineffective in reducing PM2.5 at current ambient 

concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley... VOC should not be considered a significant PM2.5

precursor in this instance‖. CARB VOC supplement. p.1.

As explained above, although EPA‘s presumption in the PM2.5 implementation rule is 

that VOC need not be a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, this presumption may not be technically 

justified for certain nonattainment areas. Indeed, technical information in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

strongly suggests that VOC reductions can significantly reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations 

and contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

The above statements from the PM2.5 Plan indicating VOC is a significant precursor may 

not constitute a technical demonstration sufficient to reverse the PM2.5 implementation rule 

presumption 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 PM2.5 implementation rule that VOC is not an 

attainment plan precursor. 40 CFR §51.1002(c)(5).

In view of conflicting statements about VOC in the Plan, and in the absence 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 interpretations 

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 involved 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 conclusive 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 episodes. The monitoring studies were 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 NOx controls, rather than on VOC versus. NOx

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 

concentrations far below those of ammonia are evidence that the formation of particulate 

ammonium nitrate is limited by NOx emissions rather than by ammonia emissions. (Lurmann et. 

al., 2006). The concentration of nitric acid (HNO3) relative to peroxides suggests the prevalence 

of VOC-limited OH and nitrate formation relative to VOC-abundant conditions (Pun, 1998). The 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 57

correspondence of daytime ozone and nitrate PM2.5 peaks for rural sites is evidence that they are 

driven by a common process, daytime NOx oxidation via NOx and VOC-driven oxidant 

photochemistry (Pun, 2004). However, a later study concluded that this correspondence could 

also be explained by ozone transport or by daytime entrainment of nighttime nitrate formed aloft 

(Lurmann et. al., 2006). The Plan quoted 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 nitrate in the San Joaquin Valley‖. Lurmann, F. et. al., p.1688, cited at 2008 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5, a pathway that 

is not directly affected by VOC emissions reductions. The monitoring studies provide evidence 

that VOC-limited processes contribute to PM2.5 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 more than 

VOC. One study did not directly address the issue, but stated that background ozone was the 

most important oxidant, implying 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 PM2.5 effect of 50 percent reductions in emissions of 

NOx, ammonia, and VOC. The two earliest of these studies used photochemical 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 model 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 least for some times and places, though generally less so than 

NOx control. 

One of the photochemical grid modeling studies predicted VOC control to be about 2/3 as 

effective as NOx control (17.5 percent benefit from VOC vs. 25 percent from NOx), though VOC 

disbenefits occurred at some smaller reductions (Kleeman, Ying, and Kaduwela, 2005). In 

addition, in its VOC supplement, CARB drew attention to various NOx vs. VOC isopleth 

diagrams in the study, which contain curves showing the PM2.5 effect of various combinations of 

NOx and VOC reductions. The flat or upward-tilting curves show that for the more realistic 

situation of NOx and VOC reductions occurring simultaneously, VOC reductions show very little 

PM2.5 benefit, and even a disbenefit at greater NOx reductions. 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 organic nitrates such as PAN; by lessening this nitrate 

―sink‖, VOC reductions leave more nitrate available to form PM2.5. CARB VOC supplement, p.7
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 58

24-hour NOx/VOC particulate isopleths, μg/m3

 Source: Kleeman, Ying, and Kaduwela, 2005, portion of Figures 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 PM2.5

levels, which occur toward the end of the modeled episode, and that this is likely due to a 

different chemical regime during the high PM2.5 days. An alternative, that the sensitivity is 

somehow a result 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 HO2

(hydroxyl and hydroperoxyl). CARB VOC supplement, p.10. These statements are not supported 

by quantitative evidence, but in any case, it is apparent that 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 PM2.5 is 

about 80 μg/m3for Angiola, and about 100 μg/m3for Bakersfield. CARB VOC supplement, 

Fig.5, p.11, reproduced below. If the daytime VOC-driven OH route for NOx oxidation to nitrate 

were important, VOC sensitivity would be expected throughout the whole episode, not just the 

latter half with the highest PM2.5 concentrations. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 59

Time series with daily observations, base case simulation results and results from 

four sensitivity cases of nitrate and PM2.5 at Angiola and Bakersfield

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

The importance of this lack of VOC sensitivity for lower PM2.5 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 PM2.5 concentration levels that are no longer reached in the 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 PM2.5

daily maximum values over 80 μg/m3during 1999-2002; by contrast, there were only 24 maxima

over 80 μg/m3during 2007-2010.

18 The decreased frequency of high values lends support to the 

CARB position, but does not imply the study results are irrelevant. It does appear, however, that 

there is complexity to PM2.5 formation in the SJV that is not fully understood, and this study did 

not consider the more realistic scenario of VOC and NOx reductions occurring together.

The third grid modeling study predicted VOC control to give slightly more benefit than 

NOx control (23 percent for VOC vs. 21 percent for NOx) (Livingstone et. al., 2009). CARB 

pointed out that, of the various scenarios modeled in this study, the most realistic one showed a 

PM2.5 benefit of only 12 percent from a 50 percent VOC reduction, and a 38 percent benefit from 

a 50 percent NOx. CARB VOC supplement, p.9.

While the models, assumptions, input data, and results differed between these studies, 

they provide evidence that control of VOC by itself can significantly reduce ambient PM2.5

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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 NOx reductions, a more realistic 

scenario given the control measures that are in place, showed a VOC disbenefit, especially for 

larger NOx reductions. There is some indication that VOC sensitivity is less important for more 

recent episodes, with lower PM2.5. 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 

nitrate 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 PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. Since there 

remains substantial uncertainty about the efficacy of VOC reductions, and even some danger of a 

disbenefit from additional VOC reductions, EPA finds that the PM2.5 implementation rule 

presumption that VOC is not an PM2.5 attainment plan precursor should remain in place for the 

time being.

It is unfortunate that the only study that explored the combined effect of NOx and VOC 

reductions predated CRPAQS, the most comprehensive PM2.5 study for the SJV so far. It is also 

unfortunate that modeling tools such as process analysis were not used to investigate the change 

in chemical regime that appears to occur at higher PM2.5 concentrations, and the relative roles of 

the daytime and nighttime NOx oxidation routes. It would be highly desirable for future 

modeling efforts, such as for the attainment demonstration needed for the new PM2.5 standard, to 

explore precursor effectiveness more definitively.

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Pun and Seigneur,

1998

monitored IMS95 data

p. E-3

Since only a small fraction of NOx is converted to HNO3... 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 NOx. However, these inferences need to be 

confirmed.

p. E-4

However, further research is needed to understand the production of 

oxidants during the fall season and to assess the sensitivity of 

oxidants and HNO3 to VOC and NOx precursors.

p. 3-14

Typical concentrations of HNO3... and H2O2... suggest that the 

oxidant chemistry of the San Joaquin Valley may be in the VOCsensitive regime during the winter season. This result is 

preliminary...
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 61

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

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 is greatly reduced when the VOC 

emissions are halved...

A 50% reduction of VOC emissions reduces peak OH and O3

concentrations by as much as 20%. The resulting N2O5

concentrations are more than proportionately reduced, and 

consequently, the rate of HNO3 production 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 HNO3-sensitive, that HNO3 formation is 

oxidant-sensitive, and that oxidant formation is sensitive to 

reductions in VOC emissions.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 62

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Pun, 2004

monitored CRPAQS 

data

p. 2

During winter, high concentrations of PM2.5 and O3 occur together in 

[rural] Angiola because daily peak concentrations for both species 

occur during the day on many days with high PM concentrations. 

The diurnal cycles of winter PM and O3 at the urban sites [Fresno 

and Bakersfield] show a phase difference between these two 

pollutants.

In Angiola, nitrate is the dominant component of winter PM2.5 and 

the daytime peaks of PM2.5 are caused by daytime peaks in PM2.5

nitrate concentrations. Since daytime conditions are comparatively 

less favorable for nitrate to partition into the particulate phase, peak 

concentrations during 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 surface 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 chemical 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 NO2 and HNO3 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 63

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

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 NOx 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 NH3 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 predicted decrease 

in particulate nitrate concentrations of approximately 25–30%

pp.5336-5338

a 50% reduction in NOx emissions reduces maximum particulate 

nitrate concentrations by approximately 12 μg/m

3

...VOC and NH3

emissions controls are not as effective as NOx controls for 

particulate nitrate... a 50% reduction in VOC emissions reduces 

ground level particulate nitrate concentrations by only 7 μg/m

3

... a 

50% NH3 emissions reduction reduces ground level particulate 

nitrate concentrations by only 4 μg/m

3

McCarthy, 2005

monitored CRPAQS 

data

p. 18

Daytime HNO3 production rates are limited by sunlight, VOCs, and 

background ozone

Nighttime HNO3 production is limited by background ozone which 

is abundant aloft but not at the surface
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 64

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

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 NOx and VOC emission rates and background O3 concentrations 

that control the rate of NOx oxidation. This analysis is not able to 

assess the relative benefits of controlling NOx 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 

afternoon 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 production is 

relatively slow.

p. 1690

Valley-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 O3

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 hypothesis.

p. 1692

Estimated secondary organic aerosol concentrations are small 

compared with concentrations of likely VOC precursors; however, 

the estimated secondary portion of PM2.5 OC and PM2.5 mass is 

significant in several locations.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 65

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

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 NOx and PM emissions would be 

effective on average, but reductions in VOC and NH3 emissions 

would also be beneficial for certain times and locations.

p.405

Reductions in anthropogenic VOC led to decreased O3

concentrations at both urban and rural sites. However, there was 

virtually no effect on OM

p. 408

The reduction in NOx 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 Bakersfield, 

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 O3 concentrations in both urban and rural 

locations. However, nitrate concentrations were less sensitive to 

anthropogenic VOC emissions than to NOx 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 NOx emissions. Rural nitrate 

concentrations were quite insensitive to anthropogenic VOC 

emissions on some days. [Fig. 2 shows at most 10% reduction in 

PM2.5 peaks at Angiola and Bakersfield.]

p. 408

an effective control strategy for PM2.5 in the SJV that is 

comprehensive in time and location may require controls of multiple 

precursors rather than a single key precursor.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 66

Table C-1

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings

on VOC as a Precursor for PM2.5

Study and Basis Quotes from Study

Ying, Lu, and 

Kleeman, 2009

UCD/CIT model on 3-

week CRPAQS 

episode,

15 December 2000 to 

7 January 2001

p. 424

The NOx is not immediately transformed into nitric acid/NH3 nitrate 

due to slow photochemical reactions in the winter. Background 

ozone is the most important oxidant for reactive nitrogen with 

gradual conversion of NOx to particulate nitrate over several days.

Livingstone 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 NOx and AVOC 

[anthropogenic VOC] showed similar effects on percentage basis in 

different areas, and both are more effective than reducing NH3 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% NOx -21% PM2.5

-50% AVOC -23% PM2.5

-50% NH3 -8.8% PM2.5

p. 5976

The fine aerosol concentration was more sensitive to AVOC than 

NOx 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 in 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.2005.05.044
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 Pacific 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 Nitrate 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 O3 Correspond to High PM2.5? How Much 

PM2.5 Corresponds 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/workshop/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 NOx 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 PM10/PM2.5 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 Environment, 43: 419-430, January 

2009. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.033.

3. Conclusions

EPA concurs with the evaluation in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that, at this time, ammonia does 

not need to be considered an attainment plan precursor for purposes of attaining the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

The information submitted by CARB raises legitimate questions about the extent to 

which VOC emissions contribute to ambient PM2.5 concentrations in SJV, and other existing 

information on the contribution of VOC emissions to ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV, do not 

provide a basis for reversing the presumption that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor. 

Accordingly, EPA maintains the presumption that VOC is not an attainment plan precursor in the 

SJV for the 1997 PM2.5 standards, in the absence of a clear technical demonstration that the 

presumption is incorrect.19 We note that because the SJV is designated as nonattainment for the 

 

19

 In its approval of the SJV 2003 PM10 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 PM10 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 PM10 attainment and that it had a lower 

effectiveness than NOx control in reduction PM10. In addition, EPA noted in its 2004 final rule the District‘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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 concentrations. See 72 FR 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 PM2.5 standards in the SJV. These comments did not 

provide any substantive new information or interpretation 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 precursors is limited to the attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard in 2006 to lower it to 35 μg/m3and 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 such controls would significantly 

contribute to lower PM2.5 levels in the Valley.

 

Since its 2004 finding, EPA promulgated the PM2.5 implementation rule, which has an explicit criterion for 

determining which PM2.5 precursors must be evaluated for controls, namely, that a significant change in emissions 

of the precursor would be projected to provide a significant change in PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 69

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology

1. Requirements 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 minimum, 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 

stationary sources. 72 FR 20586, 20610.

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, onroad 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 define 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 modifications, or 

other apparatus or techniques that reduce air pollution) that is reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 72 FR 20586, 20610.

For PM2.5 attainment plans, EPA is requiring a combined approach to RACM and RACT

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 

practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5 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 helping an area attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable are not 

required 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 

RACM/RACT. 72 FR 20586, 20612. A state must evaluate RACM/RACT for each identified 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 emissions
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 determination of RACM/RACT is a three-step process: (1) identifying 

technologically and economically feasible measures and associated emissions reductions, (2) 

conducting air-quality modeling and related analyses, and (3) selecting RACM/RACT. 

72 FR 20586, 20613. 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 PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors from the range of relevant 

sources and source categories. 72 FR 20586, 20613. A state is required to evaluate 

RACM/RACT for direct PM2.5 and SO2. A state is also required to evaluate RACM/RACT for 

NOx sources unless it finds that such sources do not significantly contribute to the PM2.5 levels in 

its area. 72 FR 20586, 20613. Significantly contribute 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 PM2.5 concentrations in the area. 72 FR 20586, 20590.

In the preamble to the PM2.5 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.

Technological feasibility refers to whether there are available measures capable of 

reducing emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors or both. A number of factors are considered in 

this analysis, such as process and operating conditions, raw materials, physical plant layout, nonair 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 this analysis, such as cost per ton of 

pollution reduced, capital costs and annualized cost. 72 FR 20586, 20619.

2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the SJV PM2.5 SIP

The 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM10 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 71

contribute to expeditious attainment of the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. We describe each 

agency‘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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 control measures (in the PM2.5 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;

recommendations 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 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6-6 to 6-8.

The identified potential measures, as well as existing District measures, are described by 

emissions inventory category in Appendix I. These measures address emissions of direct PM2.5, 

NOx and SOx. See 2008 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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:

technological feasibility and practicality of emission controls;

magnitude of emissions from the source category and likely emissions reductions (where 

possible to determine);

cost, financial impacts, and potential for socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, 

profitability);

District authority and enforceability of emissions reductions;

rate and timing of emissions reductions;

public acceptability, including interests and concerns of community members;

pollutants reduced – NOx, PM2.5, VOC, SOx, or multiple pollutants;

any potential adverse environmental impacts; and.

potential for disparate environmental impacts (environmental justice).

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-7.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 Plan and Table F-6 of this 

TSD.

The Plan also includes descriptions of the District‘s incentive programs (which target onand off-road engine replacement with an emphasis on diesel engines), its innovative strategies 

program including its Fast Track emissions reductions measures, and public education efforts. 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6-13 to 6-23. See also, SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, sections 2.3 and 2.4.

Since submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 plan, the District has adopted a number 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 NOx emissions reductions from transportation 

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 PM2.5 Plan.

For the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV MPOs developed a local RACM strategy which

consisted of two parts: (1) evaluation of potential RACM for advancing the 8-hour ozone 

standard attainment date and (2) the adoption of a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 

(CMAQ) policy to fund cost-effective emissions reductions projects.

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the MPOs reviewed and updated the evaluation of potential 

RACM from the 2007 Ozone Plan following EPA‘s guidance in the PM2.5 implementation rule

preamble. The evaluation is documented in the 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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: Calculation of the possible emissions reductions from potential TCM: Given the 

nature of the PM2.5 problem in the SJV, the analysis focused on NOx to assess whether the 

reductions from these TCM could advance attainment. It did not look at potential emissions 

reductions of direct PM2.5, SOx, VOC, or ammonia.

In the 2007 Ozone Plan, emissions reductions estimates were calculated for the list of 

possible local TCM. The maximum feasible emissions reductions for NOx estimated from 

implementing all of these TCMs are approximately 7 tons per day (tpd) in 2020 and 5 tpd in 

2023. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-10. These estimates are 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 estimates for NOx reductions for 2020 and 2023 needed to be 

adjusted to reflect 2013/2014. Due 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 NOx reductions estimated in 2020 

and 2023 underestimate the reductions that could be produced in earlier years. Using a ratio of 

fleet average NOx emission rates for light-duty vehicles in 2013 to 2020 (2.07), maximum 

reductions are 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, PM2.5 levels in the SJV are higher in the winter time. Because 

mobile source NOx emissions are higher in the summer than winter, NOx reductions for summer 

will be higher than for the winter. Thus, applying the reductions estimated for the summertime to 

the wintertime to evaluate whether the implementation of TCM would advance attainment in the 

SJV is conservative (i.e., over estimate the potential emissions reductions). 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

p. 7-10.

Step 3: The emissions reductions estimates were compared against the attainment 

demonstration to determine if they collectively advance attainment by a full year. Using Table 9-

1 from the draft PM2.5 plan, it was estimated that an additional 93.123 tons per average annual 

day of NOx emissions reductions would be necessary in 2013 to advance attainment of the PM2.5

standard by one year which is considerable more than the estimated 14 tpd of potential NOx

reductions from TCM. 2008 PM2.5 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 would advance attainment of the PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV and thus no additional adoption of measures was necessary. 2008 PM2.5

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 emissions reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs. 2008 PM2.5

Plan, p. 7-8.

 

22 The methodologies 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 they 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 PM2.5 Plan, Table 9-1. Based on the information in the 2011 Progress Report, this value would be 

15.6 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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. California has unique authority under the CAA to adopt 

standards for most categories of on- and off-road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances 

only to a waiver by EPA under CAA section 209.

CARB developed its proposed statewide strategy after an extensive public consultation 

process to identify potential SIP measures. This process is described in the 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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,

CARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes 

based on further staff analysis and public comments. CARB Resolution 07-28, p. 3.

From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new defined measures

to address California‘s ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment problem. 2007 State Strategy, p. 65 and 

CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures focused on cleaning up the in-use 

(―legacy‖) fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a number of 

engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle fuels and consumer products. Many, 

if not most of these measures, were being proposed and adopted for the first time anywhere in 

the nation. They built on CARB‘s already comprehensive program to address emissions of direct

PM2.5, NOx, VOC, and SOx 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 includes 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 Strategy can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/

2007sip.htm.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 75

Table D-1

2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration

Ozone and PM2.5 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-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 2010-2015

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean 

Technologies 2007-2008 Phase-in starting 2010

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels

Fuel: 2007

Engines: 2009

Fuel: 2007-2010

Engines: Phase-in 

starting 2010

Port Truck Modernization 2007-2008 2008-2020

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner LineHaul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007-2008 Starting in 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 2009-2018

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2007 Phase-in starting 2008

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural Equipment 2009 Phase-in starting 2014

New Emissions Standards for Recreational 

Boats 2009-2010 2012-2013

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle 

Emissions Standards By 2010 2012-2015

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground 

Storage Tanks 2007 Phase-in starting 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 2010-2012

Consumer Products Program (I & II)

2007-2008

2010-2012

By 2010

By 2012-2014

Department of Pesticides Pesticide 

Regulation 2008 2008

Source: CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 76

Table D-2

Updated 2007 State Strategy: PM2.5 SIP Measures

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley

Defined State Measure Action

Smog Check Improvements 2007-2009

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2007, 2008, 2010

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007-2008

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels

Fuel: 2008-2011

Engines: 2008

Port Truck Modernization 2007, 2008, 2010

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2008

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007, 2010

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2007, 2010

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 1
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 77

3. Proposed Actions on the RACM/RACT Demonstration

In November 2010, EPA proposed to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 demonstration 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 plan as providing for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the 

San Joaquin Valley by that date. The proposal to approve the RACM/RACT demonstration was 

also based on our proposed concurrence that VOC should be considered a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. See 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.D. and 76 

FR 41338, 41347.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the set of measures necessary 

for expeditious attainment. The measures must address emissions of direct PM2.5

25and all PM2.5

attainment plan precursors that are necessary for expeditious attainment. Thus, in order for a 

PM2.5 plan to demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate that it 

provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586, 20612-20623.

As discussed in Sections II.E and G. of this TSD, we are granting California‘s request to 

extent the attainment date for the SJV until April 5, 2014 and approving the attainment 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 plan as providing for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the San Joaquin Valley by that date.

As discussed in Section II.C. of this TSD, EPA is concurring with the evaluations in the 

2008 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. 

Therefore, EPA finds that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, together with the 2007 State Strategy,

provides for the implementation of all RACM/RACT necessary for expeditious attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 

CFR § 51.1010 and approves the SJV PM2.5 SIP‘s RACM/RACT demonstration pursuant to 

these sections.

We received a number of public comments disagreeing with our finding that the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP provided for the implementation of RACM/RACT and suggesting a number of 

additional measures that should be considered RACM/RACT. We have considered these 

comments and measures and determined that none adversely affect our finding that the SIP 

 

25

 Condensable PM2.5, which is considered direct PM2.5, did not need to be addressed in rules prior to 

January 1, 2011. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 Implementation Rule related to RACT:

As discussed in section I.A.2.b., EPA received a petition for reconsideration of several 

provisions in the PM2.5 implementation rule including three provisions related to RACT. We 

describe each below and whether the provisions affect our action on the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP:

1. The presumption that compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) satisfies the 

NOx and SO2 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 25162 (May 12, 2005).

2. The allowance for states to defer establishing emission limits for condensable PM (CPM) 

until January 1, 2011. 72 FR 2058, 20652 (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 PM2.5 Plan includes some discussion of criteria for economic 

feasibility that seem to reflect the revised criteria in the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 79

E. Attainment Date Extension

1. Requirements for Attainment Date Extensions

CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) states that an area‘s attainment 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 PM2.5 designations, including that for the SJV nonattainment area, have an effective date 

of April 5, 2005, the initial attainment date for PM2.5 areas is no later than April 5, 2010. For any 

areas that EPA grants 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 PM2.5 implementation rule addresses the attainment date 

requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires a state to submit an attainment demonstration justifying 

its proposed attainment date and indicates that EPA will approve an attainment date at the same 

we approve the attainment demonstration. Thus, our approval of an extended attainment date is 

dependent upon a demonstration showing expeditious attainment.

A state that requests 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 technologically feasible for the area are being implemented to bring 

about expeditious attainment of the standard 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 PM2.5 Plan

The expeditious attainment demonstration that supports the District‘s proposed 

attainment date is found in Chapter 9 of the Plan 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 PM2.5 standards. See

SJVUAPCD 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 expeditious attainment 

date in the SJV. See 2011 Progress Report, p. 1.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 80

Table E-1

Expeditious Attainment Demonstration for the Annual PM2.5 Standard

in the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per annual average day)

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Baseline NOx 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

CARB 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

NOx emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2

At attainment level? no no no no no yes

Baseline directed-emitted PM2.5

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 PM2.5 emissions level needed 

for PM2.5 attainment 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3

At attainment level? no no no no no yes

Baseline SO2 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

SO2 emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6

At attainment level? no yes yes yes yes yes

Overall annual PM2.5 standard 

attainment? no no no no no yes

Projected attainment year/

attainment date 2014/April 5, 2015

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 9-1.

N/A: not applicable. CARB provided commitments to NOx and PM2.5 reductions in 2014 only .
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 81

Table E-2

Revised Expeditious Attainment Demonstration

for the Annual PM2.5 Standard

in the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per annual average day)

Year 2009 2012 2013 2014

Baseline NOx inventory 500.9 424.4 393.1 376.2

District commitments/actual 

achieved1 2.4 11.8 12.4 9.0

Adjustments to baseline2117.5 84.6 73.95

76

CARB commitment3 N/A N/A N/A

Controlled inventory4381 328 306.8 291

NOx emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2

At attainment level? no no no yes

Baseline direct PM2.5 inventory 79.8 77.0 75.9 75.0

District commitments11.6 6.7 6.7 6.7

Adjustments to baseline25.2 1.3 2.0

5.0

CARB commitment3 N/A N/A N/A

Controlled inventory473 69 67.2 63.3

Direct PM2.5 emissions level needed 

for PM2.5 attainment 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3

At attainment level? no no no yes

Baseline SO2 inventory 26.4 23.6 23.8 25.5

District commitments/actual 

reductions1 0.1 3.5 3.6 3.6

Adjustments to baseline23.3 0.1 0.3 0.5

CARB commitment3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Controlled inventory423.0 20 19.9 21.4

At attainment level? no yes yes yes

Overall annual PM2.5 standard 

attainment? no no no yes

Projected attainment 

year/attainment date 2014/April 5, 2015

Source: 2008 PM2.5 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 commitment level is used here instead of actual emissions 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 2007 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, Attachment 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 Progress Report, Appendix C, Table C-1. 2013 PM2.5 and NOx

numbers are estimated from information in the 2011 Progress Report and additional information provided by 

the District, see SJVUAPCD, Tables 3-1 ―Adjusted PM2.5 Inventory‖ and Table 3-2 Adjusted NOx Inventory,‖ 

no date. 

5.

Calculated by averaging 2014 adjustments to baseline (63.1 tpd for NOx and 2.7 tpd for PM2.5, see Table F-7) 

and averaging this result with the adjustment to baseline for 2012. A similar calculation is done for PM2.5, and 

SOx.

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not specifically address the most expeditious date for the 

attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 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. CARB used the regional model to evaluate the top 25% of days 

modeled to provide the annual analysis. Based on design values for 2005, CARB 

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 require 

a weight of evidence evaluation.

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 3-32.

3. Proposed Actions on the Attainment Date Extension

In 2010, we proposed to not grant the State‘s request to extent the attainment date for the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV to April 5, 2015. 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 PM2.5 implementation rule 

(72 FR 20586, 20601), EPA cannot grant an extension of the attainment date beyond the initial 

five years provided by section 172(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 disapprove 

the RACM/RACT demonstration because of the issues with the air quality modeling and absence 

of analysis of VOC controls. We noted, however, that given the severity of the PM2.5

nonattainment problem in the SJV, an extension of the attainment date would 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 air quality in the SJV and our determination that SIP provided 

for the adoption and expeditious implementation of all reasonably available measures to reduce 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors and for expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards as 

practicable. See 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.E. and 76 FR 41338, 41354.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

SJV‘s degree of PM2.5 nonattainment can fairly be characterized as severe. The area 

typically records the highest ambient PM2.5 levels in the nation, with 2008-2010 design value for 

the annual PM2.5 levels in urban Bakersfield area of 21.2 μg/m3. See EPA, Air Quality 

Subsystem, Design Value Report, June 1, 2011. The PM2.5 problem in the San Joaquin Valley is 

complex, caused by both direct and secondary PM2.5 and compounded by the area‘s 

topographical and meteorological conditions that are particularly conducive to the formation and 

concentration of PM2.5. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Chapter 3.

As discussed in section II.F. below, the District's and State‘s strategy for attaining the 

PM2.5 standard in the SJV relies on significant reductions of direct PM2.5 as well as the PM2.5

precursor pollutants NOx and to a lesser degree SOx. The State and District have already adopted 

and are currently implementing a comprehensive set of PM2.5, NOx, and SOx control measures.

We have found 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.

Reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions are achieved primarily from control measures on

open burning, commercial charbroiling, residential wood combustion, and in-use trucks and 

buses. 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 NOx emissions come largely from District rules 

for fuel combustion sources and from the State‘s mobile source rules. Reductions in SOx

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 outreach if 

applicable control approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and CARB that 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan reflects expeditious implementation of these 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 emissions 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 

emissions reductions beyond what is already anticipated from the State‘s in-use mobile source 

control and incentive programs.

Given the severity of the PM2.5 air quality in the SJV and adoption and expeditious 

implementation of all reasonably available measures to reduce direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, 

we find that the SJV PM2.5 SIP provides for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards as 

expeditiously as practicable. EPA, therefore, grants California‘s request for an attainment date 

extension to April 5, 2015 for the San Joaquin Valley pursuant to CAA section 172(b)(2).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 rights), 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 date....‖ 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which applies to all SIPs, contains virtual identical language.

The PM2.5 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 relies 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 promulgated, or 

otherwise SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the

initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. We believe that 

the CAA allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control 

strategy requirement when they are limited in scope.

The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6), given above, is quite broad, 

allowing a SIP to contain any ―means or techniques‖ that EPA determines are ―necessary or 

appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the 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 states that failed to comply 

with them.

26 Additionally, 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. 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).

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 the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 86

2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy

For the purposes of evaluating the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 requirements into two categories: baseline measures 

and control strategy measures.

As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and District rules and 

regulations adopted prior to December 2006 (i.e., prior to the development of 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

and 2007 State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the attainment 

year of 2014 and beyond.

28 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1 and 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix B, p. B-1. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline inventory 

and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide the majority of 

emissions reductions needed to attain the PM2.5 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 emissions reductions 

needed beyond the baseline measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM/RACT, 

and/or provide for contingency measures.

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in 

the Appendices A and B to this TSD.

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and 

implementing 13 new control measures for direct PM2.5, NOx, and/or SOx. 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 actions remaining.

In Table F-2 below, we list the expected emissions reductions from each measure as 

given in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan; however, we note that the District‘s commitment is only to the 

aggregate emissions reductions shown. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-9 and SJVUAPCD Governing 

Board Resolution, p. 5. The reductions listed in Table F-2 are those anticipated to be achievable 

from each rule at the time the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted. In 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 PM2.5 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

feasibility studies. See 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 87

being feasible through these studies will be included in future plan updates with schedules and 

emissions reduction commitments. A list of these studies, their anticipated completion dates, and 

their current status is given in Table F-6. Additional information on these feasibility studies can 

be found in the SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, Appendix C.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 88

Table F-1

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2008 PM2.5 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

PM10 & SOx –

January 2011

NOx limits –

January 2014-

2018

2009

PM10 & SOx –

June 2009

NOx 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 – 2014 N/A Attrition TBD 2015 TBD

S-COM-141 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 2011
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 89

Table F-1

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 elsewhere in the Plan.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 90

Table F-2

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments Plan Assumptions

(tons per average annual day)

NOx Emissions Reductions

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

S-AGR-1 4103 - Open Burning (Phase III & IV) 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-14

4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood 

Burning Heaters 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06

Commitment to Total NOx Reductions 2.43 3.24 4.26 8.56 8.82 8.97

Direct PM2.5 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-14

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 PM2.5 Reductions 1.60 2.96 4.4616.69 6.70 6.70
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 91

Table F-2

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments Plan Assumptions

(tons per average annual day)

SOx Emissions Reductions

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III & IV) 0.0620.10 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-14

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 SO2 Reductions 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.92 0.92 0.92

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-3

1 The value 4.46 is given on Table 6-3b in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. PM2.5 reductions expected in 2011, 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 92

Table F-3

Approval and Submittal Status of SJVAPCD Rules in the 2008 PM2.5 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 Approved 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 93

Table F-4

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Emissions Reductions from Approved Measures

(tons per average annual day)

NOx 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 0.50

S-COM-14

4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters 0 0.12 0.12

M-TRAN-1 9410 - Employer-Based Trip Reduction20 (0.31) (0.33)

Total Creditable NOx Reductions from Approved Measures 2.43 9.93 11.1

Direct PM2.5 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-14

4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters 0 1.15 1.08

S-IND-9 4692 - Commercial Charbroiling30 0.0 0.0
TSD for the Final Rule 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 94

Table F-4

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Emissions Reductions from Approved Measures

(tons per average annual day)

M-TRAN-1 9410 - Employer-Based Trip Reduction20 (0.03) (0.03)

Total PM2.5 Reductions from Approved Measures 1.6 4.30 4.23

SOx 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-14

4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters 0.01 0.02 0.02

Total SO2 Reductions from Approved Measures 0.06 3.48 3.61

Source: SJVUAPCD, ―Table 3-1 Adjusted PM2.5 Emission Inventory; Table 3-2 Adjusted NOx Emission Inventory; and Table 3-3 Adjusted SOx

Emission Inventory,‖ March 2011, available in the docket for this rule. All reductions are based on the Plan‘s emissions inventory.

1 NOx 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 listed. 

3 Erroneous value given in SJVUAPCD tables.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 95

Table F-5

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 NOx. 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 Completed. 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 PM10 Prohibitions Reg. VIII 2009 On-going through 2011. Study currently focused on refining estimates of 

direct PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-4 and SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, Appendix C.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 96

b. CARB Measures and Commitments

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, the State has already adopted and 

EPA has approved or proposed to approve, or is in the process of granting waivers under 

CAA section 209 to most of these measures. These new measures build on the State‘s already 

extensive 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 to the State‘s commitment to propose specific measures, the 2007 State 

Strategy includes an enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient in combination 

with existing measures and the District‘s commitments to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San 

Joaquin Valley by the requested attainment date of April 5, 2015. For the SJV, the 2007 State 

Strategy included a State commitment to achieve 5 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 76 tpd of NOx 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 emission reductions, the State still commits to 

achieving the total aggregate emission reductions, whether this is realized through 

additional reductions from the new measures or from alternative control measures or 

incentive programs. If actual emission decreases occur in any air basin for which 

emission reduction commitments have been made that are greater than the projected 

emissions reductions from the adopted measures in the State Strategy, the actual emission 

decreases may be counted toward meeting ARB‘s total emission reduction commitments.

CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), 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 described in the SIP

Other alternative measures that ARB had not considered at the time the 

SIP was adopted

Incentive programs that support the replacement or retrofit of aging, 

higher polluting pieces of equipment

Actual emission decreases

2011 Progress Report, p. 4.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 Measures Schedule for

Consideration and Current Status

State Measures Expected 

Action Year Current Status

Smog Check Improvements 2007-2009 Approved 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-Use 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 linehaul 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 Additional action expected 2013.

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Table B-1. Additional information from www.ca.arb.gov. Only defined measures 

with PM2.5, or NOx reductions in the SJV are shown here.

 

29

 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older 

vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and certification effective 2013. 

Reductions shown for the SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report and this TSD do not include reductions 

from AB 2289 improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, attachment 5.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NOx SOx

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 LineHaul 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 6416410.0 123.0 123.0 0.0 2422420.0

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 Rules
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 99

Table F-8

Creditable Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures

for the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per day 2014)

State Measure Direct PM2.5 NOx

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 0.1 0.7

Expanded Vehicle Retirement – –

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-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: 2011 Progress Report, Appendix E, p. 4. Only defined measures with PM2.5, or NOx

reductions in the SJV are shown here. Note: The 2007 State Strategy did not include SOx

reductions for the SJV.

3. Proposed Actions on the Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments

In our 2010 proposed action, we found that circumstances warranted the consideration of 

enforceable commitments as part of the SJV PM2.5 SIP‘s attainment demonstration. We also

found that both the State and the District had demonstrated the capability to meet their 

commitments. We did not find, however, that the commitments constituted 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 PM2.5 reductions, 28 

percent of the NOx reductions, and 44 percent of the SOx emissions reductions estimated to be 

needed for attainment. We also 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. 75 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, propose to approve 

SJVUAPCD'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 because they would strengthen the California SIP.

In our 2011 proposed action, we again found that circumstances warranted the 

consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the SJV PM2.5 SIP‘s attainment 

demonstration. We also found again that both the State and the District had demonstrated the 

capability 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 constituted a limited 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 100

portion of the required emissions reductions needed for attainment. The State‘s and District‘s 

unfulfilled commitments at the time of our 2011 proposal represent approximately 13 percent of 

the direct PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NOx needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV.

We also proposed to find that the commitments 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. 76 FR 41338, 41356 and 2011 Proposal TSD, section II.F. Based on these proposed 

findings, we proposed to approve the attainment demonstration that relied in part on these 

commitments. 

We also again proposed to approve SJVUAPCD'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 propose to disapprove the 

District‘s commitment to adopt revisions to Rule 4702 by December 2010 because that date had 

passed and the District has not adopted revisions to the rule. We stated that should 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 Conclusions

a. Baseline and Control Strategy Measures

As shown in Table F-9, the majority of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment come from baseline measures. These reductions come from a combination of District 

and State measures as well as adjustments to the baseline that reflect revisions to the economic 

forecasts that underlie the 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 emissions of NOx, SOx and/or particulate matter including most of the rule 

adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See Appendix B and Table F3. 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 NOx). 2008 PM2.5 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 demonstrations, we have exclude reductions 

from this rule.

 

30

 Reductions in the baseline also come from federal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s 

national emissions standards for heavy duty diesel trucks (66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001)), certain new construction 

and farm equipment (Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 (October 23, 1998) and Tier 4 diesel 

non-road engine standards, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004)), and locomotives (63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 

73 FR 37045 (June 30, 2008)). States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 101

Table F-9

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV‘s PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct

PM2.5

NOx SO2

A 2005 baseline emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 attainment 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 

measure‖). See EPA‘s proposed approval and final approval of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 

74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010).31

i. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for most of California‘s on- and 

non-road vehicle or engine standards. Examples of State waiver measures are: low emission 

 

31

 EPA position is also discussed in Brief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Better 

Arvin, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33-44.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 102

vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off-road engine standards. A list of 

California‘s waiver measures can be found in the Appendix A of this TSD.

California‘s motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute 

regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which 

amended the CAA of 1963). In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 

1967 (Pub. L. 90-148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of 

the Air Quality Act‘s pre-emption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new 

motor vehicle engines because of California‘s pioneering efforts and unique problems. This was 

not changed when the statute was amended in 1970. The 1977 amendments to the CAA 

expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.‖ 

(H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). So long as California determines that 

its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain 

findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards 

relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. See

CAA section 209, subsections (a) and (b).

As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 

209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets 

forth the federal pre-emption of state emissions standards for non-road vehicles or engines but 

allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with certain 

exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically 

allowed emissions reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are subject to a 

section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA 

for approval as part of the California SIP. In this respect, EPA treated these rules similarly to the 

federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in 

their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. Since 1990, EPA has treated 

California non-road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as 

California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver 

process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has 

treated the California non-road standards similarly to the Federal non-road standards, which are 

relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs.

Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road and non-road 

standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable 

emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). 

Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and 

quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never 

found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the 

applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which 

EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal 

measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 include in its SIP to meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act.

First, with respect to permanence, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on-road 

waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a 

partial backstop to California‘s on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP 

would apply in California). Likewise, Federal non-road vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding California non-road waiver measures. The constraints of the 

waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function 

similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. 

Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs 

and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State 

program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to 

most parts of the California program.

Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability 

onto California to enforce the on-road or non-road standards for which EPA has issued the 

waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as 

EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA 

program. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California 

SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as 

EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state‘s SIPs in their reliance 

on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not 

authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are 

not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that 

vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification,

As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions 

estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions 

factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehiclerelated waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to 

time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions 

standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as MOBILE.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for 

vehicle deterioration and many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves 

combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations. See the 

1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see

48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for 

the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 104

in California SIP actions.32 The San Joaquin Valley plan was developed using a version of the 

EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP 

development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions 

that are from the California on-road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of 

EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than 

California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through 

the use of the MOBILE model.

Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval 

process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at 

the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public 

comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and 

supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 

revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver 

has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within 

the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by 

EPA--i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of 

SIPs and SIP revisions—may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the 

appropriate United States Court of Appeals.

Further statutory support for EPA‘s long-standing practice is found in CAA section 193.

CAA section 193, enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings 

clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretations that predate those 

amendments to remain in effect so long as not inconsistent with the Act. At the time it enacted 

section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent 

prior treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Moreover, 

where Congress intends state control measures that are otherwise pre-empted under title II of the 

Clean Air Act to be incorporated into SIPs, it has required that explicitly. See, e.g., section 

211(c)(4)(C) (State fuels regulations), section 211(m) (oxygenated gasoline regulations), and 

 

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 proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular 

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 26, 1980).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 emissions reduction credit for California standards 

subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself.

As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) 

of section 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection 

(e) sets forth the federal pre-emption of state emissions standards for non-road vehicles or 

engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with 

certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor 

vehicles. Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision 

of the statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpretation with respect to motor 

vehicle standards is further compelling evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted 

congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 

waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as 

part of the California SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 

1990, effectively ratified our long-standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver 

rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatment of 

California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the 

California waiver provisions to most types of non-road vehicles and engines, once again 

reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in 

selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the 

waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not 

consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California 

faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with 

Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source 

rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. Even if section 

193 did not provide congressional acquiescence as to EPA‘s treatment of the standards, the Act‘s 

structure, evolution, and provision for the waiver of Federal pre-emption for California mobile 

source emissions standards, as discussed above, support EPA‘s long-standing interpretation of 

the CAA to allow California to rely on emissions reductions resulting from waiver measures in 

SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.

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 nonwaiver measures, many of which have been SIP approved, can be found Appendix A.

b. Enforceable Commitments

As shown in Table F-10 below, reductions in the projected baseline inventory resulting 

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 PM2.5 Plan) and approved or proposed for approval by EPA provide more than 90 

percent of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV. The balance of the needed reductions is in the form of enforceable 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 106

commitments by the District and CARB. Tables F-11 and F-12 show the District and CARB‘s 

commitments.

We believe that, with respect to the 2008 SJV PM2.5 SIP, circumstances warrant the 

consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the SJV. 

As shown 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 District 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 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State 

Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures that could achieve the 

additional emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 2008 PM2.5 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, 200833 deadline to submit the PM2.5

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 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy on enforceable 

commitments to be warranted. 

Having concluded that the use of enforceable commitment is warranted, we now consider 

the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in lieu of 

adopted measures to meet a CAA planning requirements is approvable: (a) does the commitment 

address a limited portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling 

its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.

 

33

 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 PM2.5 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 submittal date. 2007 State Strategy, p. 1.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 107

Table F-10

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments

based on SIP-Creditable Measures

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

A

Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8

B

Adjustments to the baseline and reductions 

from baseline measures and (Table F-9) 13.7 258.1 1.0

C

Total reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval measures (Tables 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-11

Emissions Reductions Remaining as District Commitments

based on SIP-Creditable Measures

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

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 0
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5

NOx SO2

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 Commitment 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 

baseline that resulted from the recent economic recession, are 3.0 tpd direct PM2.5 and 12.9 tpd 

NOx. When compared to the total reductions needed by 2014 for PM2.5 attainment in the SJV on 

a per-pollutant basis, these commitments represents approximately 13 percent of the direct PM2.5

and 4.5 percent of the NOx needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV.

We believe that the reductions remaining as enforceable commitments in the 2008 PM2.5

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 historically accepted in approving attainment demonstrations.

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 commitments.

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. These

 

34 See, for example, our approval of the SJV PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004), the SJV 1-hour 

ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 

(November 14, 2001).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 109

reports 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 ongoing program that address locomotives and in-use agricultural equipment have yet to be 

quantified but are expected to reduce NOx and direct PM2.5 emissions in the SJV by 2014.35

The District has already exceeded its commitments for reducing NOx and SOx emissions 

and has substantially met its commitment to reduce direct PM2.5 emissions. See Table F-111. It 

also has already adopted rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) that are projected to achieve NOx

reductions of 5.8 tpd in 2014. These reductions, however, are not currently creditable to the 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. See Tables F-4 and F-9. It 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.

Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have well-funded 

incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on- and off-road engine fleets. Reductions 

from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment 

demonstration. See, for example, SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.3

Finally, the SJV is designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 and NOx by 2014 to the levels 

needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley by 2014.

iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe

For the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment is for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time.

In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to the levels needed to attain the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the San Joaquin Valley, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy 

included an ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedules, which both 

the District and CARB have substantially met. EPA considers these schedules to provide 

sufficient time to achieve by 2014 the few remaining reductions needed 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 Enforceable Commitments in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP

EPA believes circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as 

part of the attainment demonstration in the 2008 SJV PM2.5 SIP. As stated above, measures 

already adopted by the District and State and approved or proposed for approval pursuant to 

CAA section 110(k) or waived pursuant to CAA section 209 by EPA provide the great majority 

 

35

 See, for example, SJVAPCD; U.S. EPA; USDA, NRCS; and CARB; Statement of Principles Regarding 

the Approach 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 110

of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV 

by 2015. We have found that the reductions that remain as enforceable commitments represent a 

limited portion of the overall reductions needed for attainment. We have also found that the State 

and District are capable of fulfilling their remaining commitments and that the commitments are

for a time period that is both reasonable and appropriate to assure that the remaining reductions 

are in place prior to the attainment date of April 5, 2015. As a result of our findings here, EPA is 

accepting enforceable commitments as part California‘s strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS in the SJV.

v. Action on Enforceable Commitments to Reduce Emissions and Adopt Specific 

Measures

We 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 

PM2.5 Plan, to the extent that these commitments have not yet been fulfilled and to achieve 

specific aggregate emissions reductions of direct PM2.5, NOx and SOx by specific years as given 

in Table 6-3 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

We are also approving CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as 

given in Table B-1 in 2011 Progress Report and to achieve the total emissions reductions

necessary to attain Federal standards 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 the projected baseline inventories as presented in CARB‘s 2011 Progress 

Report altered the calculation of the reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standards in SJV by reducing the total reductions needed from control strategy measures to 9 tpd 

(for PM2.5), 26.1 tpd (for NOx), and 0.8 tpd (for SO2). See Table F-9 above. We therefore 

interpret CARB‘s emissions reduction commitment, together with the adjustments to the 2014 

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 PM2.5 reductions and 17.1 tpd of NOx reductions by 2014 through enforceable 

control measures to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 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 emission 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 111

G. Attainment Demonstrations

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA sections 172(b) and (c) require states to submit plans that demonstrate attainment of 

the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable attainment 

date. Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, this demonstration should consists of four parts:

(1) technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are 

contributing to violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS;

(2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting 

from already-adopted national 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 the 1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan

The attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is in Section 9.1 ―Attainment 

Outlook.‖ It is summarized in Table G-1 below. 

Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5 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 Tables 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 commitments remaining in the attainment 

demonstration.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 112

Table G-1

Summary of the SJV‘s PM2.5 the Attainment Demonstration

as Submitted June 2008

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SO2

A 2005 baseline emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 attainment 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 72.3 317.3 25.4

Reductions from baseline measures and 

adjustments 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 113

Table G-2

Summary of the SJV PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration Updated April 2011

with Additional Adjustments

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

PM2.5 NOx SO2

A 2005 base year emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4

B 2014 attainment 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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

A

Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8

B

Adjustments to baseline and reductions from 

baseline measures (Table F-9) 13.7 258.1 1.0

C

Total reductions from approved/proposed for 

approval measures (Tables 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 115

3. Proposed Actions on the Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

In 2010, we proposed to disapprove the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5

Plan based on our proposed disapproval of the air quality modeling and RACM/RACT 

demonstration 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 demonstration because,

at the time of the 2010 proposal, the State‘s and District‘s unfulfilled commitments represented

41 percent of the direct PM2.5 reductions, 28 percent of the NOx reductions, and 44 percent of the 

SO2 emissions reductions required for attainment. These percentages were well above the 

roughly 10 percent figure generally acceptable 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 Conclusions

In order to approve a SIP‘s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings 

and approve the State‘s requested attainment date.

First, we must find that the demonstration‘s technical bases—emissions inventories and 

air quality modeling—are adequate. As discussed above in sections II.A. and II.B., we are 

finding that the emissions inventories and the air quality modeling on which the SJV 2008 PM2.5

SIP‘s attainment demonstration is based meet applicable EPA regulations and guidance and are 

an acceptable basis for the demonstration. 

Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the 

implementation of all RACM and RACT on sources of direct PM2.5 and each PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor. As discussed above in section II.D., we are approving the RACM/RACT 

demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP.

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are 

creditable. As discussed in section II.F., the 2008 PM2.5 SIP relies principally on adopted and 

approved/waived rules to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5

standards in the SJV by April 5, 2015. The balance of the reductions is currently in the form of 

enforceable commitments that account for 13.2 percent of the direct PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the 

NOx 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 section II.F.4., we believe that circumstances here 

warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments and that the three criteria are met: 1) the 

commitments constitute a limited portion of the required emissions reductions, 2) both the State 

and the District have demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments, and 3) the 

commitment are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these conclusions, we are allowing the 

State to rely on these limited enforceable commitments in its attainment demonstration.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 116

Finally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment area that cannot attain within 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 granting the State‘s request to extend the attainment date in the SJV to 

April 5, 2015.

For the foregoing reasons, we approve the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 SIP.

We received a number of public comments on our proposal to approve the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP. We have 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 implementation rule requires a state to submit a RFP plan at 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 emissions 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 emissions reductions such that emissions in 2012 represent generally 

linear progress from the baseline year to the attainment year. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(c). 

72 FR 20586, 20633.

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 PM2.5 and all PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. See

40 CFR § 51.1009(c).

A state is also required to demonstrate 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 state may 

demonstration this by showing that emissions for each milestone year are either 1) roughly 

equivalent to benchmark emission levels for direct PM2.5 emission and each PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor 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, 20639.

The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels are given in the PM2.5

implementation rule in 40 CFR § 51.1009(f):

(1) For direct PM2.5 emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the 

attainment strategy, the full implementation reduction is calculated by subtracting the full 

implementation inventory from the baseline year inventory. The full implementation 

inventory is the projected RFP emissions inventory for the year preceding the attainment 

date, representing a level of emissions that demonstrates attainment. The baseline year 

inventory is the emissions inventory for the year used as the base year for the attainment 

demonstration (see 40 CFR § 51.1000).

(2) For direct PM2.5 emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the 

attainment strategy, a benchmark emissions 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 118

(3) The benchmark emissions level in the milestone year is calculated for direct PM2.5

emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor by subtracting the benchmark 

emissions reduction from the baseline year emission level. The benchmark RFP plan is 

defined as a plan that achieves benchmark emission levels for direct PM2.5 emissions and 

each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy for the area.

In comparing inventories between baseline and future years for direct PM2.5 emissions 

and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, the inventories must be derived from the same 

geographic area. The plan must include emissions estimates for all types of emitting sources and 

activities in the geographic area from which the emissions inventories for direct PM2.5 emissions 

and each PM2.5 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 PM2.5 emissions and 

each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy and the ambient air 

quality improvement for the associated ambient species. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(h). 

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 8 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and is updated and revised 

in Appendix C of 2011 Progress Report. The demonstration addresses direct PM2.5, NOx, and 

SO2 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 

determining the RFP benchmarks under the PM2.5 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, 2015 which means 2014 is the attainment year for 

the purposes 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 119

Table H-1

Full Implementation Reductions

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SO2

2005 base year inventory 86.0 575.4 26.4

2014 attainment target emissions level 

(full implementation inventory)

63.3 291.2 24.6

Full implementation reductions for 

attainment 22.7 284.2 1.8

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-1

Table H-2

Benchmark Calculations

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SO2

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 baseline 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. 2012 benchmark emissions level 

(2005 baseline 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 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-2
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 120

3. Proposed Actions on the RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

In our 2010 proposal, we proposed to disapprove the RFP demonstration in the SJV 

PM2.5 Plan based 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 

towards attainment in an area. See 75 FR 74518, 74537 and 2010 Proposal TSD, Section II.H.

In our 2011 proposal, we proposed to approve the RFP demonstration in the PM2.5 Plan. 

We also proposed to find that the SJV had met its 2009 milestone. See 76 FR 41338, 41357 and 

2011 Proposal TSD, section II.H.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

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 PM2.5 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 these measures, and the expected reductions in emissions 

of direct PM2.5 and the PM2.5 attainment plan precursors, NOx and SOx, 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 PM2.5 Inventory,‖ Table 3-21 ―Adjusted 

NOx Inventory,‖ and Table 3-3 ―Adjusted SOx 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 PM2.5 implementation rule that VOC and ammonia are not PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 emissions 

and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, the inventories are derived from the same geographic 

area. The Plan includes emissions estimates for all sources and activities in the SJV from which 

the emissions inventories for direct PM2.5 emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor 

addressed in the Plan 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 levels 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 PM2.5, NOx, and SOx were below the benchmarks for 

2009, demonstrating that the SJV met its RFP targets in that year. For 2012, the projected 

controlled emissions level for direct PM2.5 is only slightly above (by less than 5 percent) its

benchmark and the projected controlled levels for NOx and SOx are substantially below their

benchmarks. We find that, overall, these projected controlled emissions levels represent 

generally linear progress for 2012.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 121

Based on our evaluation summarized above, we find that the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP

provides 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 PM2.5 SIP‘s 

RFP demonstration. We have 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 122

Table H-3

RFP Demonstration Using Updated Control Measures and Baseline Data

(tons per annual average day)

Direct

PM2.5

NOx SO2

2009

Benchmark emissions level 76 449 26

Projected controlled emissions level 73 381 23

Currently uncreditable reductions from Rules 

9410, 9510, and 4320 (Table H-4) 0 5.5 0

Corrections 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 -62 -3

Percent above/below benchmark emissions level -4% -14% -12%

2012

Benchmark emissions level 68 354 25

Projected controlled emissions level 70 328 20

Currently uncreditable reductions from Rules 

9410, 9510, and 4320 (Table H-4) 0 8.2 0

Corrections 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 -18 -5

Percent below benchmark emissions level +4% -5% -20%
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx

Direct 

PM2.5

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 PM2.5 SIP’s RFP 

Demonstrations

As discussed in section II.A. of this TSD, CARB has updated the inventories for several 

mobile source categories 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 

NOx and 5 percent for PM2.5. CARB Progress Report supplement, Attachment 1. The State, 

however, did not revise the RFP demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 adjustments to the 2005 base year inventory. As can be 

seen from these tables, the Plan still provides for RFP with these adjustments.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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

PM2.5

NOx SO2

A. Base year inventory 86.0 575.4 26.4

B.

Adjusted base year inventory assuming 4.7% 

reduction in PM2.5 and 6.1% reduction in NOx

(no change to SO2)

82.0 540.3 26.4

C. Attainment level 63.3 291.2 24.6

D. Adjusted full implementation reductions (B-D) 18.7 249.1 1.8

E. 2009 milestone date fraction (4/9) 0.44 0.44 0.44

F. Adjusted 2009 benchmark emissions reductions 

(D * E)

8.2 109.6 0.8

G.

Adjusted 2009 benchmark emissions level (BF) 73.7 430.7 25.6

H. 2012 milestone date fraction (7/9) 0.78 0.78 0.78

I.

Adjusted 2012 benchmark emissions reductions 

(D * H)

14.6 194.3 1.3

J.

Adjusted 2012 benchmark emissions level 

(2005 baseline inventory – F) 67.4 346.0 25.1

K.

Annual reductions needed for linear progress 

(

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 PM2.5 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

PM2.5

NOx SO2

2009

Benchmark emissions level 73.7 430.7 26

Revised projected controlled emissions level

(Table H-3) 73 387 23

Emissions below benchmark emissions level -0.7 -43.7 -3

Percent below/above benchmark emissions level -1.0% -10.1% -12%

2012

Benchmark emissions level 67.4 346.0 25

Revised projected controlled emissions level

(Table H-3) 70.9 336 20

Emissions below/above benchmark emissions 

level 3.5 -10 -5

Percent below/above benchmark emissions level 5.1% -2.9% -20%

Earthjustice Petition on the PM2.5 Implementation Rule

In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public 

health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of several provisions in the PM2.5

implementation rule. See Earthjustice, ―Petition for Reconsideration in the Matter of the Final 

Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule,‖ June 25, 2007. Among these provisions is 

allowing states to use emissions reductions from outside of the nonattainment area to 

demonstration RFP (out-of-area RFP) as discussed in 72 FR 20586, 20636. On May 13, 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 PM2.5 plan does not rely on out-of-area emissions 

reductions to demonstrate RFP.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 126

I. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 measures should provide for emissions 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 attainment 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 1990 (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. The CAA requires contingency measures 

that provide for additional emissions 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 PM2.5 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 approving 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 PM2.5 Plan and 2011 Progress Report

Contingency measures in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP are composed of several types: a new 

commitment to an action by the SJVAPCD, surplus reductions in the RFP demonstration, post2014 emissions reductions, a contingency provision in an adopted rule, reductions from incentive 

funds, and reductions of specifically-identified implemented rules that are not otherwise relied 

on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations.

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 2008 PM2.5 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. See 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, this discussion addresses the contingency measure provisions for 

California‘s 8-hour ozone plans and not the PM2.5 plans.

a. New Commitment

As a contingency measure, the District proposed to request that CARB accelerate the 

adoption and/or implementation of any remaining CARB 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 emissions reductions from this proposed contingency measure are not 

quantified. See 2008 PM2.5 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, the method 

used to calculate emissions reductions needed to meet RFP benchmarks withheld a certain 

percentage of those reductions for contingency purposes: 1 percent of the baseline PM2.5

inventory and 3 percent of the baseline NOx inventory. These percentages equated to roughly 1 

tpd direct PM2.5 and 17 tpd NOx being reserved for contingency. No reserve was included for 

SOx because SOx emissions levels were projected to be below the applicable benchmarks. See

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 8-4.

The 2011 Progress Report updates the RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See

2011 Progress Report, Table C-1. The updated demonstration does not include a contingency 

measure reserve but rather shows that controlled emissions levels of NOx and SOx are or will be 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 128

below the required RFP benchmarks. SOx reductions that are in excess of those needed to meet 

RFP and contingency are reserved for PM2.5 contingency measures at an interpollutant trading 

ratio of 1 tpd SOx to 1 tpd direct PM2.5. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix A, p. 2 and (for the 

trading ratio), SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, Table 2-2.

Post-2014 Emissions Reductions – The 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies on the incremental emissions

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 NOx reductions at 21 tpd in 2015. See CARB

Staff Report, p. 29.

CARB updated 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 Rules. See CARB Progress Report supplement, Attachment 2. The

updated 2015 reductions are: 3 tpd SO2 and 21 tpd NOx.

c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules/Incentive Funds

Rule 3170 – This rule, Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee, was adopted by the 

District in 2002 to meet the requirements of CAA section 185.36 This CAA section requires each 

major stationary source of VOC or NOx located in the a severe or extreme ozone nonattainment 

that fails to attain the ozone standard by the area‘s applicable attainment date to pay a fee to the 

state in each calendar year following the attainment year for all emissions above a baseline 

amount until the area attains the ozone standard.

The CAA does not specify how states may spend or allocate the fees collected under a 

section 185 fee program; therefore, states have discretion on how to use them. EPA encourages 

states to use the fees to provide incentives for additional ozone precursor emissions reductions 

from stationary and/or mobile sources or for other purposes aimed at reducing ambient ozone 

concentrations in the affected area.37 In the 2008 PM2.5 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 

standard and the rule be triggered) to implement other pollution control programs. See 2008 

PM2.5 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 expected from the section 185 equivalency program is given.

 

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 Directors, 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 PM2.5 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 NOx limits, added 

SO2 and PM10 limits, and removed certain exemptions. While the District committed to adopt 

revisions to Rule 4307 as part of the control strategy in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s control strategy, it 

had not included emissions reductions from these revisions in either the original 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 Burning 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

concentration of 20 μg/m3or greater or a PM10 concentration of 135 μg/m3is predicted 

for the geographic region.

This provision lowers the trigger for calling an episodic curtailment from the existing 

30 μg/m3. 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 provision be 

triggered.

Rule 4702 – The District is currently anticipating adoption of revisions to Rule 4702–Internal 

Combustion (I/C) Engines–Phase 2, in August, 2011. Proposed revisions to this rule include 

lowering the applicability threshold of the rule to engines 25 hp and greater (from 50 hp) and

lowering NOx, VOC, and carbon monoxide limits for all spark-ignition I/C engines that are used 

in non-agricultural operations and making 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. While the District committed to adopt revisions to Rule 

4702 as part of the control strategy in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan‘s control strategy, it did not included

emissions reductions from these revisions in either the original RFP or attainment demonstration. 

Because of this, the reductions could be considered excess to these demonstrations.

Incentive Funds – The District has received and expects to continue to receive significant 

funding for its incentive grant programs from sources that include 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 PM2.5 Plan, Section 6.5 and SJV 

PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2-3. For various reasons, mainly related to their SIP creditability, 

the emissions reductions generated from these incentive-funded projects are not included in

either the RFP or attainment demonstration in the Plan.

In April 2007, the District‘s Governing Board adopted a resolution committing 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 SIP 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 130

creditability.

38 At the time the Plan 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 

emissions reductions from its various incentive programs could be used to meet the contingency 

measure requirement and for other SIP-related purposes.

The District currently estimates that there are $112 million of incentive funds available to 

invest in the SJV for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. See SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, p. 2-4. This is in 

addition to over $301 million received from 1998 until 2010. See SJV PM2.5 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 Actions on the Contingency Measures in the SJV 008 PM2.5 SIP

In 2010 and2011, we proposed to disapprove the RFP and attainment contingency 

measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. We found that, although the Plan included suggestions for 

several potentially approvable contingency measures as well as several measures that did 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 to 

determine if the emissions reductions from some of the approvable measures are SIP creditable 

or to quantify the expected emissions reductions. We, therefore, were unable to determine if the 

Plan‘s contingency measure provisions provided 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 TSDs.

4. Evaluation and Conclusions

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, a state must submit contingency 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 emissions

reductions from base year levels that are needed for attainment by the number of years between 

the base year (2005) and the attainment year (2014). 72 FR 20586, 20643. We show this 

calculation for SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan in Table I-1 below.

We did not evaluating the provisions in the 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5, NOx, and SOx. 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 PM2.5 Plan to assure that the next milestone was 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 Creditability of Incentive-Based Emissions Reductions,‖ April 30, 2007.

39

 In the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District estimated that the $90 million per year of incentive funds then 

available to the SJV could provide 3.6 tpd of NOx emissions each year, accumulating year to year (that is, after five 

years, for example, the cumulative reduction would be 18 tpd). See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-9.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 131

revision to the SJV PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NOx SOx

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan would require multiple steps to implement 

including the adopting of a resolution by the SJVUAPCD‘s governing 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 contingency 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 NOx and SOx will be below the required RFP benchmarks in 2012. These surplus reductions 

are available use as NOx and SOx contingency measures for the 2012 RFP milestone. The 2011 

Progress Report reserves the SOx reductions that are in excess of those needed to meet RFP and 

contingency as PM2.5 contingency measures, using an interpollutant trading ratio of 1 tpd SOx to 

1 tpd direct PM2.5 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 SOx to direct 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 132

PM2.5 as the District has not provided an adequate technical justification for this ratio. See

section II.B.4 above.

Post-2014 Emissions Reductions - Additional emissions reductions resulting from the 

implementation 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 control program of 21 tpd NOx, 

and 3 tpd SO2. See CARB Progress Report supplement, Attachment 2.

Table I-2

Excess Reduction in Updated 2012 RFP Demonstrations

Available for Use As Contingency Measures

(tons per annual average day)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SOx

Benchmark emissions level 68 354 25

Revised projected controlled emissions 

level (Table H-3) 70.9 336 20

Emissions above/below benchmark 

emissions level 2.9 -18.0 -5

Excess SOx proposed to substitute for 

PM2.5

4.8

1-Year‘s worth of RFP 2.5 31.6 0.2

c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules

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 incentives 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 adopted revisions to Rule 4702 but the revised Rule has not been 

submitted to EPA or approved by EPA. Because this rule is not currently approved 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 extent that 

they contribute to creating excess reductions in the RFP demonstration.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 133

Rule 4901 – We find that the contingency provisions 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 failed to attain the PM2.5 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. See ―Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs,‖ EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001). 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive grant programs expected to generate 

the emissions reductions nor the quantity of these emissions reductions that the District intended

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 PM2.5 Plan.

The 2008 PM2.5 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 

contingency measures, the 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 when considered on a per-pollutant basis. EPA finds that these surplus reductions are 

insufficient to meet the CAA‘s requirements for RFP contingency measures.

41

As also shown on Tables I-3 and I-4, the 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 asserts that these reductions are equal to at least one-year‘s worth 

of RFP when considered on a PM2.5 equivalency basis; however, to make this showing, the State relies in part on an 

interpollutant trading ratio of 1 ton of SOx reductions to 1 ton of PM2.5 reductions. As discussed in section II.B.4. of 

this TSD, there is insufficient technical support for this ratio and EPA is not allowing its use as part of the 2008 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 134

2014). However, these reductions do not provide emissions reductions equivalent to one year‘s 

worth of RFP when considered on a per-pollutant basis. EPA finds that these surplus reductions 

are insufficient to meet the CAA‘s requirements for attainment contingency measures.

Based on the above evaluation, EPA disapproves the RFP and attainment contingency 

measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR § 51.1012.

Because we are approving the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the motor vehicle 

emission budgets, we are issuing 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 

PM2.5 nonattainment area.

We received a few comments on our proposed disapproval of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 

summarize these comments and provide full responses to them in section III.I. of this TSD.
TSD for the Final Rule 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 135

Table I-3

Summary of Approvability of Contingency Measures from the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan

Measure

RFP or 

Attainment 

Contingency 

Measure?

Approvable as a 

Contingency 

Measure?

Comment

Tons per Average Annual Day

Year Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SOx

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

2015 N/A N/A N/A

Revisions to Rule 4702 Attainment No Rule not adopted 2015 – –– –

Contingency provision in 

Rule 4901 Attainment Yes 2015 1.61 Not quantified

1

Phone conversation, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD, and Frances Wicher, EPA, August 26, 2010, value is average annual day.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 136

Table I-4

Summary of Reductions from Contingency Measures

(tons per average annual day)

Direct PM2.5 NOx SOx

2012 RFP contingency reductions (-2.9) 18 5

Attainment contingency reductions 1.6 21 3

1-year‘s worth of RFP 2.5 31.6 0.2
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 137

J. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5

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 severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP‘s 

goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) 

worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any 

interim milestone.

Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA‘s transportation conformity 

rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area‘s regional 

transportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the 

applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) contained in all control strategy SIPs. An attainment, maintenance, 

or RFP SIP should include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP year or last year 

of the maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors.

PM2.5 attainment and RFP plans should identify budgets for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5

attainment plan precursors. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include direct PM2.5 motor 

vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. A state must also consider whether reentrained paved and unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are significant 

contributors and should be included in the direct PM2.5 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 

determined that the budgets are adequate. To be found adequate and to be eventually approved, 

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, the budgets must reflect all of the 

motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations. See

40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 138

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP

a. MVEB Submitted in SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan (submitted June 2008)

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan included budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOx for the attainment 

year of 2014 and the RFP years of 2009 and 2012. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Section 7.2.2 and 

Appendix C. The direct PM2.5 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 PM2.5 levels in the Valley. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-5. 

No budgets for SOx were included because on-road emissions of SOx were also considered

insignificant. Id. No budgets were included for either VOC or ammonia because neither was 

considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See section II.C of this

TSD.

b. Updated MVEB Submitted in 2011

On May 18, 2011, CARB 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 revisions to these updated MVEB in Appendix A-2 of the 2011 Ozone 

SIP Revisions.

42 The revised updated MVEB are for direct PM2.5 and NOx 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.

The submittals also include a trading mechanism for transportation conformity analyses

that would allow future decreases in NOx emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any 

on-road increases in PM2.5, using a NOx:PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. Transportation conformity trading 

mechanisms 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 PM2.5 precursor 

pollutant.

As described in the 2011, Appendix A-2, this trading mechanism would only be used, if 

needed, for conformity analyses for years after 2014 and, to ensure that the trading mechanism 

does not impact the ability of the SJV to meet the NOx budget, the NOx emissions reductions 

available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the 2014 NOx

budget has been met. Clear documentation of the calculations used in the trade would 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 updated MVEBs were calculated. The baseline 

inventories are the initial SIP on-road mobile source inventory submitted in the Appendix C of 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. These baseline inventories continue to be based on the activity data 

(e.g. vehicle miles travelled) provided by the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan as submitted in June 2008. 

 

42

 The updates to the revised MVEB were in response to EPA‘s action approving the SJVUAPCD 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 updated budgets submitted July 29, 2011 do not. The updates also corrected 

data entry errors in the revised budget calculations
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 139

The first adjustment, ―State Strategy Adjustment,‖ incorporates 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 Assembly Bill 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 PM2.5 MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per average annual day)1

County

2012 2014

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx

Fresno 1.5 35.7 1.1 31.4

Kern (SJV) 1.9 48.9 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 Revisions, July 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 140

Table J-2

Calculation of the Revised Updated PM2.5 MVEB

for the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per average annual day)

County

2012 2014

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx

Fresno

Baseline Inventory 1.82 47.82 1.65 40.60

State Strategy Adjustment 0.36 11.99 0.56 9.07

Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.22

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 32.46 1.44 26.29

Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.28

Budget 1.9 48.9 1.2 43.8

Kings

Baseline Inventory 0.59 16.00 0.51 13.52

State Strategy Adjustment 0.20 5.47 0.26 4.20

Adjustment to Baseline 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.06

Budget 0.4 10.5 0.3 9.3

Madera

Baseline Inventory 0.50 12.30 0.46 10.62

State Strategy Adjustment 0.12 3.14 0.17 2.55

Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.07

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 0.14

Budget 0.8 19.7 0.6 17.4

San Joaquin

Baseline Inventory 1.39 35.24 1.29 30.27

State Strategy Adjustment 0.36 10.73 0.46 8.58

Adjustment to Baseline 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.14

Budget 1.1 24.5 0.9 21.6
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 141

Table J-2

Calculation of the Revised Updated PM2.5 MVEB

for the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per average annual day)

County

2012 2014

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx

Stanislaus

Baseline Inventory 0.84 22.25 0.76 18.69

State Strategy Adjustment 0.16 5.58 0.23 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 0.13 5.19 0.21 4.05

Adjustment to Baseline 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.10

Budget 0.7 15.7 0.5 13.8

Source: Source: CARB, 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, July 21, 2011, Appendix C.

Budgets are rounded up to the nearest tenth ton (0.1).

3. EPA‘s Actions on the MVEB in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 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 emissions 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 Valley PM2.5 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.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm.

b. Proposed Action on the MVEBs in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 proposed to determined that the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan did not provide for reasonable 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, the budgets, when considered together 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 142

with all other emission sources, are inconsistent 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 

had already found to be inadequate, based on our initial proposed determination that the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not provide for attainment. See 75 FR 74518, 74536.

On July 13, 2011, we proposed to approved the revised updated PM2.5 budgets included

CARB‘s proposed 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revisions. 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 section 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. We 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP and supplemental submittals including the 2011 Progress Report. Based on 

this thorough review of these submittals, we are approving the attainment and RFP 

demonstrations in the 2008 SJV PM2.5 SIP. The revised updated PM2.5 MVEB submitted with the 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions are consistent with these attainment and RFP demonstrations and 

meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including meeting the adequacy 

criteria in §93.118(e)(4). EPA, therefore, is approving 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 determinations, the motor 

vehicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and 

compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the plan, for example 

emissions should be rounded to the 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 decreases in NOx emissions from on-road mobile sources to 

offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, using a NOx:PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB, the 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 143

trading mechanism would only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses for years after 2014. 

Also, to ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability of the SJV to meet the 

NOx budget, the NOx emissions reductions available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would only 

be those remaining after the 2014 NOx budget has been met. The trading mechanism will 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 NOX emissions reductions in excess of those needed to meet 

the NOx budget.

Trades in one direction from NOX to direct PM2.5.

A trading ratio of 9 tpd NOX to 1 tpd PM2.5.

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 NOx:PM2.5 ratio as discussed in section II.D.4. of this TSD, 

and finds it appropriate ratio for trading between NOx and direct PM2.5 for transportation 

conformity purpose in the San Joaquin Valley for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We have determined 

that the 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 PM2.5 Plan as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

includes 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 transportation conformity 

program for the SJV for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also approving the use of this ratio in 

transportation conformity determinations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS but only until such 

time EPA finds adequate or approves budgets developed specifically for the 2006 standard.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 144

Table J-2

Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

September 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(i)

The plan was endorsed by the 

Governor (or designee) and was 

subject to a public hearing.

Y

The June 20, 2008 transmittal letter submitting the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 Board Resolution (08-28). 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, 2007 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 released 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 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy in 

the 2011 Progress Report and 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 20, 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 145

Table J-2

Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

September 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(ii)

The plan was developed through 

consultation with federal, state and 

local agencies; full implementation 

plan documentation was provided 

and EPA‘s stated concerns, if any, 

were addressed.

Y

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was developed through consultation with federal, state 

and local agencies which place with the San Joaquin Valley interagency 

consultation working group (the Model Coordinating Committee). Members of 

the consultation group include: EPA, FHWA, FTA, CARB, Caltrans, 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 PM2.5 Plan and draft State Strategy but 

provided no written comments. However, in response to EPA‘s requests for 

additional information, CARB provided 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 

quantified 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 146

Table J-2

Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

September 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(iv)

The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emission sources, is 

consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and attainment.

Y

EPA has 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 PM2.5 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 approving the revised 

RFP demonstration.

EPA has concluded that the updated budgets for the year 2014 when 

considered together with all other emission sources are consistent with the 

requirement to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-

hour PM2.5 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 approving the revised attainment demonstration.

The revised updated MVEBs for direct PM2.5 do not include emissions from 

re-entrained road dust (paved and unpaved) or road/transit construction 

activities. The 2008 SJV PM2.5 plan, pp. 7-5 & 7-6, concluded that neither are 

significant contributors to PM2.5 emissions in the SJV. EPA agrees that reentrained road dust is not a significant contributor to PM2.5 emissions in the 

San Joaquin Valley. 

There are no budgets for the PM2.5 precursor SOx because on-road vehicles are 

projected to be an insignificant contributor to PM2.5 levels in the SJV in both 

2012 and 2014. 2008 SJV PM2.5 plan, pp. 7-5. There are no budgets for the 

PM2.5 precursors VOC and ammonia because they are not considered 

attainment PM2.5 precursors in the SJV and thus are not required to be 

controlled for PM2.5 attainment. See SJV PM2.5 plan, pp. 7-4 & 7-5 and section 

II.C. of this TSD.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 147

Table J-2

Evaluation of the Revised Updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

September 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria

(40 CFR part 93)

Is Criterion

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(v)

The plan shows a clear relationship 

among the emissions budget(s), 

control measures and the total 

emissions inventory.

Y

The emissions inventory 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 PM2.5 Plan as updated by 2011 Progress Report. 

The final inventories incorporating the reductions from adopted measures are 

given in Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B to the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

Appendix A, D and E of the 2011 Progress Report and Attachment A in the 

CARB Progress Report supplement.

Sec. 

93.118(e)(4)(vi)

Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy or maintenance plans 

explain and document any changes to 

any previous submitted budgets and 

control measures; impacts on point 

and area source emissions; any 

changes to established safety margins 

(see §93.101 for definition), and 

reasons for the changes (including 

the basis for any changes to emission 

factors or estimates of vehicle miles 

traveled).

Y

CARB submitted revisions to the attainment and RFP demonstration in the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 measures 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 PM2.5 Plan contains public comments and SJVUAPCD responses in 

appendix J to the Plan. 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 

have 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 Comments
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 (76 FR 

41338).

Commenters on the November 30, 2010 proposal were:

1. [AIR] Brent Newell, General Counsel, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, 

January 31, 2011, ―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-2010-0516)‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by 

Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents (AIR); Martha Guzman, 

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation; Catherine Garoupa White, Director 

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition; Maria Covarruvias, President, Comité Residentes 

Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano; Salvador 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 Ventura County in support of AIR‘s 

January 31, 2011 letter. 

3. [Earthjustice]. Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, and Sarah Jackson, Research Associate, 

Earthjustice, January 31, 2011, ―Comments on EPA‘s Partial Approval/Disapproval of 

the San Joaquin Valley‘s State Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter, Docket 

# EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516‖ with enclosures. Comments are submitted on behalf of 

Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, Fresno Metro Ministries, the California Rural 

Legal Assistance Foundation, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, TriValley CAREs; the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, and the Central Valley Air 

Quality Coalitions‘ Watchdog Committee. 

4. [SJVUAPCD]. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, 

January 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; PM2.5; Proposed Rule (Docket Number: EPA-R09-OAR2010-0516).

5. [CARB modeling supplement]. John DaMassa, Chief, Modeling and Meteorology 

Branch; California Air Resources Board, January 28, 2011, Attention: Docket No. EPAR09-OAR-2010-0516) with enclosure.

6. [CARB]. James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, 

January 31, 2011, 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 PM2.5 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, 2011, ―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-2010-0516)‖ 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; Salvador Partida, Co- Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Bradley Angel, 

Director, Greenaction for Health & 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 Cort, Staff Attorney, and Sarah Jackson, Research Associate, 

Earthjustice, August 12, 2011, ―Comments on EPA‘s Partial Approval/Disapproval of 

the San Joaquin Valley‘s State Implementation Plan for Fine Particulate Matter, Docket 

# EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516‖ 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 

PM2.5 SIP. These proposed disapprovals 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 supported; and volatile organic compounds (VOC) controls were not included in the 

plan although available information indicated that VOC controls would be effective in reducing 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 commitments. See CARB modeling 

supplement, Goldstene January 31, 2011 letter, and 2011 Progress Report. The State has also 

submitted its Truck rule43 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 approval at 76 FR 40652, 40654 (July 11, 2011).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 151

proposed to approve that rule on July 11, 2011. 76 FR 40652. EPA has also approved or 

proposed to approve a number of District rules which provide for NOx and PM2.5 reductions in 

the SJV. See Table 2 at 76 FR 41338, 41344. All these rule actions have served to reduce the 

percentage of the emissions reductions 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 PM2.5 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, noting 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 proposal to approve 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 is 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 suggests that revisions 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 any assurance that ―the requirements 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 PM2.5 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 also 

―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 emissions 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, call 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 ―Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Rulemaking 

Action on the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 estimating 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 Emissions 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 requirements 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 of 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 never 

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 are created.

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that CARB has reviewed and updated 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 NOx and 1.4 tpd of PM2.5. Using information in the 

2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 19,47 it calculates the reduction in the SJV 2005 inventory for sources 

subject to the rule from these updates as approximately 25 tpd of NOx and 1 tpd of PM2.5. Based 

on its calculations, Earthjustice asserts that CARB‘s updated emissions estimates reduce the

Plan‘s 2005 inventory by 9 percent for NOx and 3 percent for PM2.5 rather than the estimates of 6 

percent for NOx and 5 percent for PM2.5 provided by CARB in its Progress Report supplement.48

Earthjustice claims that no documentation is provided for these 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 OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets,‖ Title 13 CCR sections 2449 through 2449.3. The Off-Road 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 2010 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 PM2.5 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 diesel rule changes had on the base year inventory. 

Response: To calculate 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 methods.‖ 

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 NOx and 3.5 tpd PM 2.5) 

from the 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, Appendix B, resulting in its reductions estimates of 28.1 tpd NOx 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 subject 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 reductions are 20 tpd of NOx 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 mining 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 

percent. 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 NOx 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 NOx and 1 tpd PM2.5) and the figures 

from Earthjustice‘s rough estimates based on statewide information in the Off-Road Rule ISOR 

(24.5 tpd NOx and 1.2 tpd PM2.5) 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, 2011. 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 154

To calculate its estimate of the change to the 2005 year inventory that results from nonrecession 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 inputs 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 NOx

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 

NOx 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 indicates this is ―from what was assumed in 2008.‖ Prior to 

adopting the rule in 2008, the State reviewed and updated the inventory for trucks and buses. See

2008 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G. This review resulted in an approximately 10 percent 

increase in the statewide 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 statewide 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 estimated baseline truck emissions in the 

SJV decreased approximately 13 tpd NOx and 2 tpd of PM2.5 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 2008 (―2008 Truck Rule ISOR‖), Appendix G, Table 1. Subtracting emissions from these source 

categories results in emissions of 238.2 tpd NOx and 9.8 tpd PM2.5.

51

 The 2008 Truck Rule ISOR, Appendix G at p. G-63 gives a 2008 baseline statewide estimate of 860 tpd 

NOx 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 NOx. State Strategy number is the sum of MHDDT, HHDDT, school bus, and other bus 

categories.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 155

Table III-1

Comparison of Effect of Non-Recession Impact on the Base Year Emissions 

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

NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5 NOX PM2.5

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 Plan Inventory Numbers (tpd)

2005 SIP* 2009 SIP* 2009 Revised 2014 SIP* 2014 Revised

Truck & Bus 

Rule Sources 

249.4 NOx

9.89 PM 2.5

241 NOx

9.1 PM 2.5

(no numbers 

found)

165 NOx

6.3 PM 2.5

88.6 NOx ***

1.9 PM 2.5 ***

Off-Road Rule 

Sources 

70.4 NOx

3.5 PM 2.5

58.8 NOx

2.9 PM 2.5

12 NOx **

0.5 PM 2.5 **

44.3 NOx

2.0 PM 2.5

14 NOx **

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 diesel 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 PM2.5 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 equipment 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 revised 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 inventory. 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 NOx reduction as 

12.4 tpd and the second gives the value as 12 tpd. The PM 2.5 values are identical. The difference 

between the two is simply how the NOx numbers are displayed. On Table 36, NOx reductions are 

given to the first decimal place (12.4 tpd) while on the Table 5, they are given rounded to a 

whole number (12 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 purposes 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 approves the inventories, such approval ―cannot 

be used as an excuse to build a revised plan on these data‖ and that any 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 PM2.5 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 standard is due in December 2012. As we stated 

in our 2011 proposal, we 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 41338, 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 recession.‖ 

Response: In its comments, AIR calculates what it considers ―the total reductions from baseline 

reductions without recession reductions‖ as 11 tpd of PM2.5, 195 tpd of NOx, and 0.9 tpd of SOx. 

These figures are the same as the calculated reductions from the baseline measures prior to the 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 submitted 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 forecasts. 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 populations, 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 impacts 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 

equipment, 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 not 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 PM2.5, 63.1 tpd NOx and 0.1 tpd of SOx. 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 PM2.5 Plan. Finally, citing EPA‘s statement in the 2011 

Proposal TSD about the effect 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 alone has reduced the projected 2014 

baseline emissions in the SJV nor did it provide the numbers cited by AIR. As discussed in the 

response to the preceding comment, revisions to the baseline inventory took into account not 

only changes to the State‘s economic 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 ascribes 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 PM2.5 Plan and the recently revised 2014 

baseline 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 adjustment 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, the baseline NOx 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 effects 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 51.1007(b).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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-road 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 Rule ISOR, Appendix D.53 These 

inventory revisions also included review of current and future activity data (such as fuel 

consumption, diesel fuel sales, trucking industry tonnage reports, truck sales trends, and truck 

registration data) for these categories as 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 more 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, therefore, 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 has opted to take 

credit for the decrease in the inventory in the attainment demonstration as  ̳a line-item adjustment 

to the baseline inventories.‘‖ EPA stated in 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 line-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 the 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 an 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,‖ available at http://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, available in the docket for this rule. Sources 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 Office, 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 159

refute CARB‘s extensive 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 current 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 emissions inventory for a specific year drives the model 

predictions, and ambient concentrations during 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 PM2.5 Plan.

Comment: Earthjustice objects 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 regulations 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 PM2.5 Plan, p. 3-20) of SJV 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 PM2.5 measurements, and therefore do not rely heavily on controls of these 

elements have little need to distinguish certain of the PM2.5 components. The Plan statement 

basically says that the default EPA approach lumps these together as ―other,‖ whereas SJV 

wanted 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 

Guidance57: the central idea of SMAT is that each chemical species behaves differently and is 

affected differently by controls, so they should be individually handled before summing them to 

get a total predicted concentration for comparison to the NAAQS. 

EPA, the District, and CARB could have been clearer about the distinction between 

SMAT and SANDWICH (sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, inferred carbonaceous material 

balance approach). Some statements about SMAT are actually about SANDWICH, which can be 

used as a particular step within SMAT. SMAT is the overall approach to accounting for PM2.5

species components in the attainment demonstration, whereas SANDWICH is a method for 

determining the species components of PM2.5 monitored concentrations, 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 PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze,‖ EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007, p.56.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 attainment 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 that occur in near-highway areas.

Response: EPA agrees that the simple screening analysis in the Plan as originally submitted 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 adequately addresses the commenter‘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 PM2.5 concentrations outside of traditionally monitored locations. 

... Based on the monitoring guidance, we believe that an unmonitored area 

analysis conducted at 12 km or finer resolution is sufficient to address 

unmonitored PM2.5 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 PM2.5, especially when evaluating violations of the 

24-hr. NAAQS.‖ 

These modeling guidance recommendations are consistent with the requirements of the EPA‘s 

PM2.5 monitoring rules. The modeling 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 contribution 

(that is, directly emitted rather than formed chemically over time), and relying on local primary 

PM controls to reach attainment. EPA Guidance, p.100. By contrast, the attainment 

demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan mainly relies on area-wide control of NOx, a PM2.5

precursor, rather than on control of local primary PM2.5.

 

58

 CARB modeling supplement, ―Three-Dimensional Grid-Based Photochemical Modeling-Related 

Responses to the US EPA‘s Technical Support Document‖, California Air Resources Board, January 28, 2011, 

p.100 (SJV_Modeling_Information_1-28-2011.pdf).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 161

Comment: Mr. Frantz comments 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 PM2.5 has worsened in recent years, except for improvement in 2009-2010. Mr. Frantz, 

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 upward 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. Air 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 attainment 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 other 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 concentrations, frequency of high 

concentrations, concentration of PM2.5 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 slight PM2.5 concentration increase shown in the Plan for 

2006 continued through 2008 and flattened in 2009. Although PM2.5 concentrations continued to 

improve in 2010, the Bakersfield area‘s annual and 24-hour PM2.5 design values calculated from 

2008-2010 data 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, Earthjustice asserts that 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS by April 5, 2015 will require review of ambient data from 2012, 

2013, and 2014. Earthjustice also asserts that the majority of emissions reductions in the 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 states that the modeling 

year must be adjusted to give a more reasonable prediction 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 PM2.5 standards by the attainment date. Finally, Earthjustice asserts that 

the fact that the majority of reductions 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 explained in 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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, the 

majority of the reductions needed for attainment occur well before 2014. The Plan‘s RFP 

demonstration shows that more than 87 percent of the NOx, 80 percent of the PM2.5 and all the 

SOx 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 

PM2.5 provides for RFP consistent with the CAA and the PM2.5 implementation 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 PM2.5 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 attainment 

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 the expected continuing emission decreases during the years before 

the attainment year. The monitored base year design value reflects an emissions decrease over 

the three years of 2004-2006, not just the single 2005 emission year. The 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 

an 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 will have air quality 

measurements at or below the levels of the standards 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 monitoring data.60 An attainment demonstration, on 

the other hand, is a predictive tool for assessing what air quality will be at a future time. An 

attainment demonstration is based on air quality modeling showing that the projected design 

value of the relevant pollutant in attainment year will be at or below the level of the relevant 

ambient air quality standard. See 72 FR 20586, 20605 to 20609.

Additionally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment area subject only to the requirements of subpart 1 

of title I, part D of the CAA, 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 PM2.5 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 ―PM2.5 implementation rule.‖

60 A determination of attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard is based on monitoring data that shows 

a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations of less than 15 μ/m3, and a determination of the attainment of 

the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standard is based on monitoring data that shows the 3-year average of 98th percentile 24-

hour concentrations is less than 65 μ/m3. See 40 CFR § 50.7.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 modeling 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, starting 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 substantially 

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 plan 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 making this judgment is whether the changes would affect the 

conclusion that the plan‘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 on 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 finds that the 5-6 percent base year emission decreases due 

to the inventory updates are relatively small compared to the overall 50 percent reduction in 

emissions between the base and future years.

EPA did assess the effect of the emissions inventory improvements on the attainment 

demonstration, using a procedure described in the 2011 Proposal TSD and other supporting 

documents. EPA noted in the 2011 Proposal 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 (2nd Cir. 2004) (denying petition 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 2008 PM2.5 Plan.

63

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

Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze‖, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007. (―EPA Guidance‖)
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 response

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 emissions update on the attainment demonstration, essentially by removing the 

bias revealed by the update from both the base year and the attainment year.

64 The bias was 

estimated by combining the emissions changes with an estimate of model PM2.5 sensitivity per 

unit of emissions change. The effect of removing the bias by this procedure was to increase 

predicted attainment year annual PM2.5 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 conclusions. 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 PM2.5

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 reasonable 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 procedure 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 modeling experts from 

regulatory agencies, academia, and consulting firms were involved in developing the SJV 

modeling. It underwent successful diagnostic testing, and it performs well. EPA finds 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 transport, 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 does 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 emissions reduction between 

the base and future years. An RRF scales the monitored design value using the relative model response to a given 

emissions 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 165

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 rather 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 by the commenter), but this is largely an artifact of showing the 

procedure in multiple steps for comprehensibility. EPA could have done the calculation in a 

single step to avoid this artifact. When a 10 percent change in NOx emission results in a design 

value change of 1.4 percent, a calculation using this model sensitivity result will necessarily 

involve fractions of 1 percent or less. In this case, the emissions inventory update involved a 

change in NOx emissions of less than 10 percent, and thus, would be expect to also 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 

District 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 comments that given these problems, the 9:1 NOx to PM2.5 relative 

effectiveness ratio cannot be used for transportation conformity or other purposes, 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 NOx to direct PM2.5 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 emission changes. There is no established method 

for determining trading ratios in conformity, but as discussed in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p.148), 

EPA finds that the model sensitivity-based method used by CARB for determining an 

equivalency or relative effectiveness 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 166

D. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA should rely on the November 2010 proposal‘s 

technical demonstration that VOC should be considered a PM2.5 plan precursor 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 VOC as a precursor, including statements in the 

Plan, the relative size of the VOC and NOx inventories, the fraction of ambient PM2.5 that is 

organic carbon, results from modeling studies, and a statement by District staff that VOC 

reductions may reduce PM2.5 more than do reductions of SO2, which is considered a plan 

precursor.

Response: The PM2.5 implementation rule establishes a presumption that VOC is not a PM2.5

plan precursor requiring controls. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3). This presumption may be 

overturned if either EPA or the state technical provides an appropriate demonstration showing 

that VOC emissions from sources in the state significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the nonattainment area. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3)(i) and (ii). The preamble 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 defines ―significantly contribute‖. Under the rule, excluding VOC as an 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 PM2.5 precursor in the SJV. EPA proposed to find that these 

studies constitute a technical demonstration that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, and 

used that as a basis to propose disapproval of the Plan, which lacks VOC controls.

Earthjustice correctly 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 made in its VOC supplement65. CARB noted the importance of considering 

simultaneous VOC and NOx reductions, a more realistic scenario than VOC-only or NOx-only 

reductions, given the various controls that are already in place for the ozone plan. The only study 

to consider simultaneous reductions found a disbenefit from VOC control, while NOx control 

continued to be beneficial. CARB 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 PM2.5. 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 PM2.5 formation and that the benefits from VOC reduction were seen only at high 

PM2.5 concentrations that are seldom seen today. 

 

65 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 PM2.5 Precursor for the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP).‖ (―CARB VOC supplement‖)
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 levels in the SJV. Even setting aside concern that VOC control 

could worsen PM2.5 concentrations in some circumstances, EPA finds that the evidence of the 

effectiveness of VOC controls is at this time not clear enough to overcome the presumption in 

the PM2.5 implementation rule that VOC should not be an attainment plan precursor. However, 

EPA also believes it is important that reductions of VOC, ammonia, and other PM2.5 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 SO2 statement described by Earthjustice. However, it appears 

to be based on the receptor modeling performed by the District; the 1.4 μg/m3benefit of VOC 

mentioned in the statement is cited in the Plan‘s Receptor Modeling Documentation (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 PM2.5 is via photochemical reactions with NOx. 

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 SO2 control, and SO2

is a plan precursor, then VOC should also be a plan precursor. This argument has some intuitive 

appeal. However, as discussed above, EPA‘s PM2.5 implementation rule establishes a 

presumption that VOC is not a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor absent an appropriate technical 

demonstration for the specific nonattainment area. Regulation of SO2 as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor, on the other hand, is required in all PM2.5 nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR § 

51.1002(c)(1). Thus, EPA cannot rely on an argument about the relative effectiveness of VOC 

and SO2 control to establish VOC as an attainment plan precursor. To the extent that Earthjustice 

intended to challenge EPA‘s determinations regarding PM2.5 plan precursors in the PM2.5

implementation rule, that challenge is outside the scope of this action. 

Even if it were known that controlling VOC would be more effective than controlling 

SO2, that would not in itself imply VOC should be an attainment plan precursor unless SO2

control had also been demonstrated to be effective. There has not been such a demonstration for 

the SJV; SO2 is an attainment plan precursor by presumption, not because controlling it has been 

shown to be effective in this area. Indeed, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a statement that SO2

control is not effective (Receptor Modeling Documentation, p.8166), despite the District 

statement quoted by the commenter. Given these conflicting statements, the SO2 premise of the 

commenter‘s argument has not been established, even if the argument was admissible.

EPA addressed all other arguments submitted by Earthjustice in both our 2010 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 PM2.5 Plan.

67 The 2010 Proposal TSD is the ―Draft Technical Support Document for the Revised Proposed Action on 

the San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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, while in its response to public 

comments there are several statements dismissing VOC as a precursor (Comments and 

Responses, 2008 PM2.5 Plan Appendix J). In our 2011 proposal, EPA emphasized the 

inconclusiveness of these multiple statements, and also to the fact that the receptor modeling is 

considered by CARB 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 gave more emphasis to statements in one study68 that highlighted aerosol 

nitrate formed aloft at night, a PM2.5 formation pathway that may not driven by local VOC 

emissions, and hence little affected by VOC controls. The imported ozone pathway was also 

described as the dominant in one of the modeling studies, as well as by CARB staff involved in 

modeling of the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) episodes.

The modeling studies gave mixed results, with one finding no benefit from VOC 

controls, another finding a PM2.5 disbenefit from VOC reductions when they occur 

simultaneously with NOx 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 PM2.5 standards.

We note as a practical matter, that substantial VOC reductions have already occurred and will 

occur in the future as a result of SJV‘s ozone plans, so whether or not these VOC controls are 

part of the PM2.5 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 NOx 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 PM2.5 plan precursor.

Response: Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, like VOC, ammonia is not a PM2.5 plan 

precursor unless either EPA or the State provides an appropriate technical demonstration 

showing that ammonia emissions from sources in the State significantly contribute to PM2.5

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 longlasting 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 Approaches 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 169

Corroborative & Weight-of-Evidence Analyses‖ and ―Develop Improvements to the PM2.5

Inventory to Better Reconcile with Ambient Measurements‖. These are being conducted under 

the auspices of the Central California Air Quality Studies (CCAQS) Technical Committee. The 

latter will include improvements for estimates of the ammonia from livestock and also will 

include a task to ―Investigate Specific High PM2.5 Areas in the CCAQS Domain,‖ particularly 

Bakersfield. These projects will add to the understanding 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, see CARB‘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 NOx were both 

enhanced in Kern County relative to other locations, as suggested by the commenter, that would 

not in itself change the PM2.5 formation from being NOx-limited to ammonia-limited. As 

discussed in the 2011 Proposal TSD (p.45 and pp.52-53), the Plan provided ample evidence that 

ammonia is so abundant that controlling it would be ineffective for addressing PM2.5. That 

evidence included the relative unresponsiveness of the receptor and photochemical models to 

ammonia reductions, CRPAQS studies of the relative abundance of NOx and ammonia, 

correlation between NOx 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 demonstration to reverse the PM2.5 implementation 

rule presumption that ammonia should not be considered a PM2.5 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 PM2.5 standards EPA agrees, however, that continued 

exploration of the precursor issue in SJV is warranted.

Comment: The District comments that they support 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 NOx, SOx and VOC 

in the formation of particulate pollution. 

Response: EPA‘s PM2.5 implementation rule requires PM2.5 plans to include controls for NOx

and SOx sources but does not require them to include controls for VOC sources unless there is a 

sufficient demonstration that such controls would significant reduce PM2.5 levels. See72 FR 

20586, 20589. After a review of the available scientific literature on the role of VOC on the 

formation of PM2.5 in the SJV, EPA has determined that there is insufficient information at this 

time to reverse the presumption against regulation of VOC controls in the 2008 PM2.5 plan. See

76 FR41338, 41350-41353 and section II.C. of this TSD. We note that, as an ozone 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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. Finally, 

Earthjustice asserts that several of the rules intended to provide the majority of NOx and PM 

reductions from stationary sources in the Valley were adopted with substantially weakened 

controls from what was anticipated during plan development and will 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 expeditiously as practicable 

(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained 

through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall 

provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ 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 also 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 (April 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 

Available 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 technological 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 interpretation 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 PM2.5 implementation 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]otential 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 

PM2.5 implementation rule, 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) requiring

only ―reasonably available‖ measures and implementation of these measures ―as expeditiously 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 171

Thus, the rule of ―reason‖ drives the decisions on what controls 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 measures and whether the measures can be readily and effectively implemented 

without undue administrative burden. See id. (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 PM2.5 Plan because EPA agrees with the State‘s determination 

that VOC are not attainment plan precursors for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 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 responses to comments on the air quality modeling our reasons for concluding that the 

modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 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 RACT for specific types of sources in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, there is no specific RACT control mandate 

for PM2.5 purposes that applies to specific sources in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Rather, under 

the PM2.5 implementation 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, 

20612). 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 PM2.5 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 NOx 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 technical and economic feasibility, 

and as to those measures that are potentially reasonable, whether they would considered 

collectively advance the attainment date in the SJV by 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 PM2.5 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, that: (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 profits‖ 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 

tons per day (tpd) to just 0.02 tpd.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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) and ―Revisions 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 potential 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). Given 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 sources 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 conclude in this final 

action on the 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan because they are not reasonably 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 relied on the ten percent of 

profits test to exempt from control the three largest source categories of NOx, PM, and VOC 

covered by the Rule. Earthjustice asserts that this resulted in foregone emission reductions of 

1,030 tpy NOx, 1,262 tpy PM2.5 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 Implementation 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 prohibitions 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 technological 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 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 NOx 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 available 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 173

Comment: Earthjustice stated 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 PM2.5 standards by the attainment date, the PM2.5 concentration triggering a

mandatory wood burning curtailment would be lowered from 30 to 20 μg/m3. 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 available 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 SJV‘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 Area. 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/m3is 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 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by at least a year. We have, nonetheless, 

evaluated in the section entitled ―Evaluation of potential to advance attainment‖ below the 

additional PM emission reductions that could be achieved by implementing a mandatory wood 

burning curtailment at a 20 μg/m3threshold (1.6 tons per winter average day, see 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 actually emit less than 8 tons per year of NOx or VOC (but are located at major 

sources) 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 SOx 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 the 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 See 76 FR 53640 (August 

 

70

 As explained 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 NOx 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 stationary sources) in CAA 

section 172(c)(1). See 40 CFR § 51.1010. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 174

29, 2011). As part of that action, we determined that the VOC and NOx emission limits in Rule

4354 meet the CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) RACT requirements for major sources of VOC and 

NOx. The compliance schedule for NOx and VOC limits 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 NOx controls that are reasonably available for this source category in the SJV. We did 

not fully evaluate in that action the stringency of the rule‘s requirements for SOx and PM10

emissions, as there is no specific RACT control mandate for SOx or PM10 purposes that 

necessarily applies to sources covered by this rule.71 We disagree with Earthjustice‘s assertion

that the exemption from the SOx and PM10 limits for certain furnaces that actually emit less than 

8 tpy of VOC or NOx (See Rule 4354, section 4.3) is ―illegal,‖ as the CAA does not establish a 

specific RACT control mandate for major sources of SOx or PM10. Under CAA section 

172(c)(1), however, the 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 NOx and PM2.5 emission reductions in the SJV to meet both the

1997 PM2.5 standards and the more stringent 2006 PM2.5 standards by the applicable attainment 

dates, we encourage the SJVUAPCD to reevaluate the PM10 control requirements in Rule 4354 

and to adopt, as expeditiously as practicable, any additional PM10 and PM2.5 control requirements 

that are reasonably available for implementation in the Valley. For purposes of the 2008 PM2.5

Plan, additional PM control requirements for glass melting facilities may, upon SIP approval, be 

credited toward the District‘s remaining enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 41338, 41354, 

Table 8.

Earthjustice asserts that the exemption in Rule 4354 for furnaces emitting less than 8 tpy 

of NOx or VOC cost the Valley 1.6 tons per day of SOx reductions and 2.9 tons per day of PM 

reductions. For purposes of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the foregone SOx emission reductions do not 

affect the RACM and attainment demonstration because SJV has exceeded its target level of SOx

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 facilities72 in our evaluation below of the potential for such additional

controls, in combination with other potential control options, to advance attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV. See section ―Evaluation of potential to advance attainment‖ below.

Comment: Earthjustice states that EPA recently rejected all of the NOx emission limits in Rule 

4352 (Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters) for failing to satisfy 

RACT and asserts that substantial NOx reductions could be achieved if the District amended this 

rule to meet the stringent limits in place in other areas of the Country.

Response: Earthjustice correctly notes that EPA recently disapproved all of the NOx 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 SOx 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 are PM2.5 reductions.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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, however, developed a 

conservative (high) estimate of the additional NOx reductions that could be achieved under this 

rule if the emission limits are strengthened. We developed this estimate based on the NOx

emission limits in the SIP-approved version of Rule 4352, the emissions attributed in the 2008

PM2.5 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 options from EPA‘s 1994 Alternative Control Techniques Document for NOx 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 3.16 tpd of NOx 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 [PM2.5] 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 the potential additional emissions reduction from 

Rule 4352 are given in the table below. 

Estimated 2014 Baseline NOx

Emissions (tpd)

Estimated Potential NOx Emission 

Reductions (tpd)1

Municipal solid waste 1.46 20.29-1.29

Coal 2.30 31.87

Biomass 0.4 40.0 5

Total 4.21 62.16-3.16

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 applicable 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 permitted 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 solidfuel fired boiler inventory of 4.21 tpd.

5

 It is unclear that revising the NOx emission limits in Rule 4352 would result in significant emissions reductions 

from SJV biomass facilities given that all of the existing biomass boilers are already achieving much lower NOx

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 assumed no additional emissions reductions from these facilities. 

6

 From 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix I at p. 20. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 176

PM2.5 implementation rule (72 FR at 20652) that ―[w]e expect States to address the control of 

direct PM2.5 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 available controls on condensable emissions.

Response: EPA‘s PM2.5 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 condensable fraction of direct PM2.5 emissions.‖ 40 CFR § 51.1002(c). 

Prior to this date, the rule required that nonattainment area SIPs identify and evaluate sources of 

PM2.5 direct emissions and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors as part of the RFP and 

RACM/RACT demonstrations but did not specifically require states to address condensable 

PM2.5. See id.74 Because the attainment, RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

were adopted on May 22, 2008 (see 76 FR 41338, 41340), California was not required 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 these requirements, EPA has 

evaluated the RFP and RACM demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and concluded that these 

elements of the Plan appropriately address all sources of direct PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5

attainment plan precursors (SO2 and NOx) in the SJV. See 76 FR 41338, 41343.75

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies on several rules regulating direct PM2.5 emissions as part of 

the PM2.5 control strategy (e.g., Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling, adopted 9/17/09), Rule 

4103 (Open Burning, adopted 4/15/10), Rule 4354 (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 NOx and SOx emissions. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Tables F-2, F-3, and 

F-4. Of the rules that control direct PM2.5 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 regulates direct PM2.5 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 recently proposed to approve (see 76 FR 38340 (June 30, 2011)) requires testing in 

accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Protocol, which 

requires measurement of both condensable and filterable PM 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, ftn. 12. We also noted that we would evaluate any PM2.5 rule adopted or revised 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 

Restaurant 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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV by one year, i.e., from 2014 to 2013, the area would need an 

additional 15.6 tpd of NOx reductions and an additional 3.9 tpd of direct PM2.5 reductions. These 

figures represent the difference between the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ and the 2014 ―NOx

emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment.‖ See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E-2 (pg. 80).77

The 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ figures were based on the District‘s expected emissions 

reductions from individual measures as identified in the 2008 PM2.5 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 

associated with specific control measures, which alter the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ estimates, 

we have re-calculated the amount of PM2.5 reductions needed to advance attainment by one year 

as 6.4 tpd.79

As discussed above, with respect to Rule 4692 (Charbroiling) 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 PM2.5

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 options 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 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by at least one year. 

Our estimate of the total reductions of direct PM2.5 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 NOx 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 3.12 tpd of NOx reductions from existing emission units in 

the SJV. These combined emission reductions (4.5 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 3.12 tpd of NOx) are 

significantly lower than the total reductions necessary to advance attainment by one year in the 

SJV (6.4 tpd of direct PM2.5 and 15.6 tpd of NOx). Therefore, even assuming that additional 

 

77

 For NOx, 15.6 tpd represents the difference between the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ (306.8 tpd) and the 

2014 ―NOx emissions level needed for PM2.5 attainment‖ (291.2 tpd). For PM2.5, 3.9 tpd represents the difference 

between the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ (67.2 tpd) and the 2014 ―Direct PM2.5 emissions level needed for PM2.5

attainment‖ (63.3 tpd).

78

 For example, the 2013 ―controlled inventory‖ for PM2.5 (67.2 tpd) is the sum of the expected emissions 

reductions from four PM2.5 control measures identified in Table F-2. See 2011 Proposal TSD at Table E-2 (pg. 87).

79

 The updates to the PM2.5 emission reduction estimates reduced the creditable reductions 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 PM2.5 emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment‖ (63.3 tpd).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan includes all RACM (including RACT for 

stationary sources) necessary for RFP and expeditious attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 

the SJV and, therefore, satisfies the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 

51.1010.

Comment: Earthjustice lists 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 

Biosolids) that EPA had not acted on. It then argues the inadequacies in these rules, including the 

rules that cover sources of VOC, must be corrected 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 PM2.5

standards in the SJV and therefore does not need to be addressed in the 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 standards in SJV and have concluded they would not. EPA has 

recently proposed to find 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 NOx 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 Rule 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 PM2.5 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, SOx, or NOx as 

part of its evaluation of potential controls for the 2008 PM2.5 SIP. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Appendix I. We note that the District completed a comprehensive review of its NOx rules as part 

of its 2007 Ozone Plan which was adopted one year prior to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and also 

undertook a comprehensive review of these rules for its 2006 Ozone RACT SIP required by 

CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f) which was adopted 2 years prior to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See

Appendices H and I of that 2007 Ozone Plan. The great majority of the District‘s rules 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP. 

Of the thirteen District control measures that it committed to adopt, one is not scheduled

for adoption until 2014 (revisions to Rule 4905 – gas residential furnaces), one was just adopted 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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), and 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 

points 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 requirements. 

Response: We note that both Rule 4307 and 4702 were considered part of the District‘s initial 

control strategy (See 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 75 FR 74518, 74539. Given 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 measures 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 Rule 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 PM2.5 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 example, 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 asserts that the measures upon which the attainment and progress 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 2011 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, AIR 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 DieselFueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted 

December 8, 2005); 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003); 

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adopted May 26, 2006); 

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 PM2.5 Plan. We explained in our 2011 

proposal (76 FR 41338, 41342, 41343) our reasons for concluding both that the 2005 base year 

inventory in the 2008 PM2.5 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 bases for the RACM, RFP and attainment demonstrations in the Plan.

With respect to mobile source emissions, we believe that credit for emissions reductions 

from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 

waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not 

approved as part of the California SIP. In the TSD supporting our 2011 proposal, we explained 

why we believe such credit is appropriate. See 2011 Proposal TSD at section II.F.4.a.i. 

Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional 

recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California 

motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the 

flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California the broadest possible discretion in 

selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. 

No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver 

measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, 

EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, 

which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a 

SIP revision.

EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor-vehicle-related waiver 

measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using 

California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP 

inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehicle-related waiver measures 

through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to 

reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions standards. (Emissions 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 181

reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as 

MOVES.

80) The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred 

to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 

FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on-road 

―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the 

emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based 

on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MOVES model. All other 

states use the MOVES model (and prior to release of MOVES, the MOBILE model) in their 

baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation 

into their SIPs.

Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California‘s waiver measures for non-road 

engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off-road recreation 

equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‘s OFFROAD emissions factor model.81

(Emissions reductions from EPA‘s non-road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California non-road 

standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle 

standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring 

submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California nonroad standards similarly to the Federal non-road standards, which are relied upon, but not 

included in, various SIPs. See generally 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 stationary and 

area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth 

factors and control profiles to the base year inventory.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, CARB 

updated the baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among 

other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating 

emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 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 Proposal 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 Information on base year emissions from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the 

districts, while CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions 

from various area source categories. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 21.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5

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 factor model (EMFAC2007) and the most 

recent motor vehicle activity data from each of the MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley; (2) 

improved methodologies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3) 

CARB's non-road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model). See TSD at section 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 these 

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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 Plan is a 

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

pollutant or pollutants‖ in the SJV area, consistent 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 guidance on development of emissions inventories and 

attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the RACM, RFP and 

attainment demonstrations in the Plan. See 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV (PM2.5, NOx, or SO2). 

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 pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at least one provision requires and merits 

a full authorization pursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. See 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the 

operational requirement of the anti-idling rule, which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, achieves 0.2 tpd of 

NOx in the SJV. See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 of the 2008 

PM2.5 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 prior to the effective date of today‘s action, 

we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the plan is fully supportable 

or to reconsider that action.

Third, as to the Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 

8, 2005), CARB‘s staff report on this measure indicates that the projected baseline inventories 

have attributed emission reductions of 0.1 tpd PM2.5 and 0.18 tpd NOx statewide to this measure. 

See Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty 

Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities, October 2005, at 

pg. 55. Assuming 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 PM2.5SIP do not 

affect our evaluation of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP.

Similarly, as to the 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 PM2.5 and 2.3 tpd NOx statewide to this measure. See

Supplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at 

pg. 18. Assuming 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 PM2.5 SIP also do 

not affect our evaluation of the attainment and RFP demonstrations in the 2008 PM2.5 SIP. 

Finally, the Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash rule (adopted March 27, 2004)

(―Chip Reflash‖ rule) was intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB‘s NOx

emission standard for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring installation of "Low-NOx

Software." The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in part by a California State Court, and CARB 

repealed the related regulations in June 2007. The emission reduction credit attributed to Chip 

Reflash in CARB‘s baseline inventories is limited to vehicles that have been ―reflashed,‖ i.e., 

physically installed the Low-NOx Software,85 removal of which would constitute a violation of 

 

Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516 ―South Coast and San Joaquin 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 Clean 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 Nonroad Engine Pollution 

Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment; 

Notice Of Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010)

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 that the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus 

related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NOx emissions reductions statewide in year 2007. CARB 

also indicates that it took into account the fact that the software upgrade regulation had been invalidated by 

including no additional emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had already occurred due to 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 27156. Thus, the NOx emissions reductions 

attributed to ―reflashed‖ engines are enforceable under the CAA and/or California state law.

As to AIR‘s calculation of the reductions from baseline measures, AIR calculates what it 

considers ―the total reductions from baseline reductions without recession reductions‖ to be 11 

tpd of PM2.5, 195 tpd of NOx, and 0.9 tpd of SOx. These figures are not correct because they do 

not take into account CARB‘s recent updates to the projected 2014 inventory. 

For the 2008 PM2.5 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 

effects 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 

changes 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 estimating 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 control 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 reasons.

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 contain 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 requirement. 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 

oversight (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. CARB staff recently 

confirmed that the baseline adjustment for chip reflash in the 2007 State Strategy reflects emission reduction credit 

only for engines that have been ―reflashed.‖ See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to 

the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, ―SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine 

Low-NOx Software (―Chip Reflash‖)‖; September 28, 2011.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 affirmative 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 interpretations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware 

of our interpretation regarding the SIP treatment of California‘s mobile source control measures. 

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 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA, Consolidated Case 

Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458. 

Response: We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of 

California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) 

is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the California 

SIP. In our 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 for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in 

establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle 

control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted 

to California in order "to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best 

means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare," (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th 

Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures 

notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated 

the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has 

always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. 

As we explained in the 2011 Proposal TSD(pp. 100-102), credit for Federal measures, including 

those that establish on-road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is 

justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content 

requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, 

or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements 

of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable 

(by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, 

and thus EPA has never found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in 

SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a 

process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal 

measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, 

and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, 

that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet 

the applicable requirements of the Act. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 measures. The constraints of the 

waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function 

similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

86

Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs 

and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State 

program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to 

most parts of the California program.

Second, as to enforceability, we note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability 

onto California to enforce the on-road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the 

waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as 

EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA 

program. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California 

SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as 

EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state‘s SIPs in their reliance 

on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not 

authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are 

not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that 

vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification.

As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions 

estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions 

factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor-vehiclerelated waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to 

time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly-established emissions 

standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as MOVES.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for 

vehicle deterioration and many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves 

combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations. See the 

1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (See

48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for 

 

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 given 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 PM2.5 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 The San Joaquin Valley plan was developed using a version of the 

EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP 

development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions 

that are from the California on-road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of 

EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than 

California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through 

the use of the MOBILE model.

Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval 

process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at 

the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public 

comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and 

supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 

revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver 

has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within 

the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by 

EPA--i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of 

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 longstanding practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not 

insert any language into the statute rendering EPA's treatment of California's motor vehicle 

standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions 

to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to 

provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the 

health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP 

review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California with 

 

87 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence 

of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 

revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular 

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 would not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that 

Congress intended California's mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process 

(i.e., the waiver process), not two.

In summary, we disagree that our interpretation of CAA section 193 is fundamentally 

flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver measures in our approval of attainment 

demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and 

contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies 

our long-standing practice of allowing credit for California's waiver measures notwithstanding 

the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to provide 

California with the broadest possible discretion in the development and promulgation of on-road 

and nonroad vehicle and engine standards.88

AIR correctly notes that EPA‘s treatment of California waiver measures in SIP actions is 

the subject of current litigation in Sierra Club v. EPA, Consolidated Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-

71458 (9th Circuit).

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 economic 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 CARB 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 more recent growth 

factors, reduced the total amount of emission reductions needed for attainment and that the 

control strategy in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as revised in 2011, demonstrates expeditious attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 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 compliance, 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 any manner differently than is required as a general rule under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local measures that are relied upon for SIP purposes must be approved into the 

SIP.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 189

inventories, however, are not ―enforceable emission 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, among 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, 

current 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, in 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 projections of future emissions-generating 

activity (including the original projections in the 2008 PM2.5 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 emissionsgenerating 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 the State‘s assessment of the control 

strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards, we conclude that it is 

appropriate to take these updated emissions projections into account as part of our action on the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. Other than 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 undermines 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 to 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 

Progress 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 activity data and growth projections. See

section III.B. (―Emissions Inventory‖) above. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 CARB 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 

NOx. 

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 III.B. (―Emissions Inventory‖) 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 PM2.5 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 from 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-Road 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 commitments 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 

reductions 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 PM2.5 and NOx

and both pollutants contribute to ambient levels of PM2.5, CARB calculated the margin on a ―NOx equivalent‖ basis 

and found that the margin for the SJV was 40 tpd of NOx equivalents. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 23. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 this 

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 PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 standards in the SJV. EPA interprets the quoted language as a statement of CARB‘s future 

plans to revise the SIP as necessary 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 PM2.5 and NOx

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 PM2.5

and 26.7 percent for NOx.

Response: EPA did not propose to disapprove CARB‘s aggregate commitments in its 2010 

proposal. We proposed then and again in our 2011 proposal to approve CARB‘s aggregate

emissions reductions commitments as described in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B. See

75 FR 74518, 74541 and 76 FR 41338, 41361. EPA did initially propose to disapprove the 

attainment demonstration based in part on our finding that the percentage of the emissions 

reductions 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 PM2.5 and 4.5 percent for NOx. 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 PM2.5 SIP have reduced the total 

tonnage of emission reductions necessary to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards (see section III.B. 

above), we disagree with AIR‘s calculation 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 PM2.5 SIP are reasonable but has not documented, under the first 

factor, how we determine the level of remaining reductions and what is meant by ―reasonably 

close.‖

Response: In our 2011 proposal we provide a detailed discussion of the emissions reductions 

needed for attainment and how they have been or will be achieved. See generally 76 FR 41338, 

41344-41347 and 41354-41357 and 2011 Proposal TSD, sections II.F. and G. These reductions 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 proposal, as are EPA‘s

calculations of the percentages of needed reductions remaining as commitments. See 76 FR 

41338, 41354, Table 8; see also 2011 Proposal TSD at pp. 105-106 and 113-114. As provided in 

the tables in our 2011 proposal and 2011 Proposal TSD, the reductions remaining as 

commitments are 12.9 tpd of NOx and 3.0 tpd of PM2.5. Id. These reductions represent 4.5 

percent and 13.2 percent of the total NOx and PM2.5 emissions reductions (respectively) needed 

for attainment. Id. 

In support of our statement that these percentages (4.5 percent of NOx and 13.2 percent of 

PM2.5) are ―reasonably close to the 10 percent range that EPA has historically accepted in 

approving attainment demonstrations,‖ we referenced several prior EPA approvals of SIPs 

relying on similar enforceable commitments. See 76 FR 41338, 41355 and n. 30. We also 

explained our legal rationale for approving 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 PM2.5 Plan 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 inappropriate.

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 will 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 PM2.5 SIP does not identify 

how CARB and the SJVUAPCD plan to accomplish the reductions needed for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV by 2015. As discussed in our amended proposal, the 2008 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 standards in the 

SJV by April 5, 2015, including baseline (pre-2007) measures that continue 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 

PM2.5 and 4.5 percent of the NOx emission reductions 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 or 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 

additional 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 the additional reductions needed to attain the standards, together with expeditious rule 

development, adoption, and implementation schedules consistent with EPA‘s policy on 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 significant progress to date in meeting their enforceable commitments. Id.

Comment: AIR 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 argues 

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 the 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 rules, CARB 

calculated the maximum level of relief it could provide without violating it SIP commitment. 

This ―SIP margin‖ was calculated as 40 tpd in NOx equivalent (a weighted combination of NOx

and PM2.5 emissions) in the SJV. See 2010 Truck Rule ISOR, p. 23 and 2010 Off-Road Rule 

ISOR, p. 20. The revisions to the in-use rules 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: Earthjustice 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 

emissions reduction from its rules and has not begun to develop its Agricultural Equipment Rule

which was to achieve 5 to 10 tons per day of NOx 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 needed 

from these rules. Earthjustice 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 cannot 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 enforceable. 

Response: We disagree 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 discussed above in section III.B. our reasons for 

concluding that the revisions to the 2014 baseline emissions inventories are valid. We also note 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 projections 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 inuse 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 measure is expected to achieve 5 to 10 tpd NOx reductions in 

2017, well after the period covered by the 2008 PM2.5 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 fact that the State revised its adoption schedule for a measure that is not relied on 

for attainment or RFP in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP does not establish that the State is generally 

incapable of meeting its enforceable commitments in that SIP. As discussed in 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: Earthjustice 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 this 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. Earthjustice 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 fact 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 (ROP)

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. at 303.

EPA does not dispute the holding of Sierra Club. However that case is not germane to 

EPA‘s approval of CARB‘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 NOx controls on a fixed schedule to achieve aggregate 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 195

emission reductions. 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 not 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 limitations 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 "means," "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 measures 

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 

enforceable 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 CARB‘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: Earthjustice 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 brought. 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 

reductions are achieved.

Response: As 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 EPA and citizens under, respectively, 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 

319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 

1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. 

Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No. 

CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). 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 PM2.5 Plan. Rather, we are approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

taking into account CARB‘s revisions to the control strategy based on the revisions to its 

projected baseline inventories.

Specifically, as explained in our 2011 proposal, CARB‘s aggregate emissions reduction 

commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan as submitted in 2008 is to achieve 76 tpd of NOx reductions 

and 5 tpd of PM2.5 reductions by 2014. See 76 FR 41338, 41346; CARB Resolution 07-28, 

Attachment B at pp. 3-6 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20.91 The District‘s aggregate 

emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 is to achieve 8.97 tpd of NOx

reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM2.5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO2 reductions 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 standards‖ 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 

PM2.5 standards in SJV by reducing the total reductions needed from control strategy measures to 

9 tpd (for PM2.5), 26.1 tpd (for NOx), and 0.8 tpd (for SO2). See 76 FR 41338, 41354, Table 7. 

We therefore interpret CARB‘s emissions reduction commitment, together with the adjustments 

to the 2014 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 PM2.5 reductions and 17.1 tpd of NOx reductions92 by 2014 

through enforceable control measures to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

SJV. The District‘s aggregate emissions reduction commitment in the Plan as submitted in 2008 

(8.97 tpd of NOx reductions, 6.7 tpd of PM2.5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO2 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, unless 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 Strategy, 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 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 20-21

92 Note that the District has already achieved all of the SOx reductions necessary to attain. See 76 FR 

41338, 41354, Table 8.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 197

Table III-2

SJV‘s PM2.5 the Attainment Demonstration

(tons per average annual day in 2014)

Direct 

PM2.5

NOx SO2

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 NOx and PM2.5 emissions and are, as such, specific strategies designed to achieve 

the SIP‘s overall objectives. Further, if CARB fails to meet its commitments, EPA 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 the 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 convert 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 (9th 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 (9th Cir. 2008), 

stating that in El Comite the court explained 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 

adopt 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 Comite, 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 CARB and the 

District have, in fact, met the global commitments. Second, the manner in which CARB and the 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 plaintiffs in Warmerdam. 

AIR adds that even if the commitments are viewed as ―strategies‖ enforcement is not 

practical because when no measures are submitted to EPA for inclusion into the SIP, citizens 

have no idea which measures CARB has used to satisfy the total tonnage commitments. AIR also 

states that there are no provisions for CARB 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 information collected by CARB and the District, whether the 

commitments have in fact been met.

Response: Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations 

and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, 

as well as timetables for compliance. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment 

area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means 

or techniques ―as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date.

Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly by EPA under 

CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be 

brought against any person who is alleged ―to be in violation of ... an emission standard or 

limitation....‖ ―Emission standard or limitation‖ is defined in subsection (f) of section 304. As 

observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st

Cir. 1996):

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the 

particular standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently 

specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for 

violations of specific provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable 

implementation plan," the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce 

specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure compliance with 

the NAAQS, but not to enforce the NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d 

at 613-14. Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the linchpin of citizen suit 

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 

F.2d 764, 769-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 

904 F. Supp. 526, 530-32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens for a Better Env't v. 

Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 

(1990).

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the 

aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to 

achieve that goal, including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions controls.

We describe CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 

in 2009 and 2011) and the 2008 PM2.5 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 enforceable commitment for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing 

measures and the District‘s commitments, to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV by April 5, 

2015. See CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B at pp. 3-6 and 2009 State Strategy Status 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 NOx and 5 tpd of direct PM2.5 by 2014. Id.

SJVUAPCD‘s commitments as submitted in 2008 were to achieve 9 tpd NOx and 6.7 tpd 

direct PM2.5 by 2014. See 76 FR 41338, 41345-41346, See also 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-9, Table 6-

2. The language used in the Board‘s resolution adopting the 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 6 to achieve the emissions 

reductions 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 committed 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 PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in the same adoption and implementation 

timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones. (Emphasis 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 attain to 9 tpd of PM2.5 reductions, 26.1 tpd of NOx reductions, and 0.8 tpd 

of SOx. 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 NOx reductions, 

6.7 tpd of PM2.5 reductions, and 0.92 tpd of SO2 reductions93 by 2014). Thus, the CARB remains 

obligated to achieve through the adoption of enforceable measures by 2014, 2.3 tpd of PM2.5 and 

17.1 tpd of NOx. The District‘s commitments remain as submitted in 2008 at 9 tpd NOx, 6.7 tpd 

direct PM2.5 and 0.9 tpd SOx by 2014. See Table III-2 above.

Thus, CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures 

that will achieve specific amounts of NOx and direct PM2.5 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/District‘s progress in achieving the requisite emission reductions. 

EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA sections 113 and 304(a), 

respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts of 

emission reductions by the 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 

commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve aggregate emission 

reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for compliance 

under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

 

93 Note that the District has already achieved all of the SOx reductions necessary to attain. See 76 FR 

41338, 41354, Table 8.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 200

Both Earthjustice and 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 estimates are 

predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined 

after consultation with the transit operators.

Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that ―[r]idership 

increases would come from productivity improvements....‖ 

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 court 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 not the same as promising to attain that target,‖ Bayview at 

698); the logic of TCM 2, i.e., the drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to characterize any given 

increase as an obligation because the TCM was contingent on a number of factors beyond 

MTC‘s control, id. at 699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of TCM 1 that had as an 

enforceable strategy the improvement of transit services, specifically through productivity 

improvements in transit operators‘ five-year plans, id. at 701. As a result of all of these factors, 

the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only 

enforceable strategy. Id. at 703.

The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and 2008 PM2.5

Plan are in stark contrast to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview. The 

language in CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments, as stated multiple times in multiple 

documents, is specific; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting 

measures to achieve the required reductions is completely within CARB‘s and the District‘s 

control. Furthermore, as stated previously, CARB and the District identify specific emission 

reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which these 

reductions will be achieved, i.e., by 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 supports the commenter‘s view that the CARB and District commitments are neither 

express nor specific. In fact, these cases support our interpretation of CARB‘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 transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs within 6 months of 

the determination. These TCMs will be designed to bring the region back within the RFP line." 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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, CARB and MTC argued that TCM 2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because 

the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this 

argument, finding that ―[w]e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for 

disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency 

measures are not provided. Thus we hold that the basic commitment to adopt and implement 

additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, fully 

enforceable in a citizen‘s action, although the exact contours of those measures are not spelled 

out.‖ Id. at 1457.94 In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency 

provisions were enforceable, the court stated: ―Thus, while this Court is not empowered to 

enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]--or NAAQS--

directly, it can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan.‖ Id. at 

1454.

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, then 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 

unenforceable.

(Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980.

CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the 

contingency measures in the CBE cases. CARB 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 implementation 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 achievement of a 

specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). CARB‘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 plaintiffs in the district court 

attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 California 1-hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide 

Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide 

the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP‘s 

pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that ―ARB will develop 

a baseline inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use 

 

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 

PM2.5 Plan identified a number of potential 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 202

data....‖ El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. 

Cal. 2006). CARB subsequently employed a different methodology that it deemed more accurate 

to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the 

original methodology, claiming that the calculation of the baseline inventory constitutes an 

―emission standard or limitation.‖ The district court disagreed:

By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the 

amount of emissions attributed to those sources. As defendants argue, once the 

sources of air pollution are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to 

control emissions entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must 

conclude that the baseline is not an emission ―standard‖ or ―limitation‖ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (f)(1)-(4).

Id. at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBE I, pointing out that in those 

cases ―the measures at issue were designed to reduce emissions.‖ Id.

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and 

the calculation methodology were necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to 

reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court‘s 

conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected 

plaintiffs‘ arguments attempting ―to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable 

emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt 

regulations, if necessary.‖ Id. at 1073.

While Earthjustice cites the Ninth Circuit‘s El Comite opinion, its utility in analyzing the 

CARB and District commitments here is limited to that court‘s agreement with the district 

court‘s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently 

enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‘s opinion, in distinguishing the 

commitments in CBE and Bayview, that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. 

As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not a 

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 PM2.5 Plan, CARB 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 CARB‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

Comment: Earthjustice comments that before EPA can approve the commitments in the PM2.5

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 enforcement 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 the 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 aggregate 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 203

tonnage by 2014 are enforceable as an 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 procedures 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 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)), 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 that 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/District 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: The 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 period 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 PM2.5 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 enforceable 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 submittal does not alter these substantive requirements of the Act. We 

discussed in responses to comments above our reasons for approving the 2008 PM2.5 Plan based 

in part on the limited amount of needed emission reductions that remain as enforceable 

commitments, consistent with EPA‘s past practice. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 204

3. Other Control Strategy Comments

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot credit the SOx reductions associated with 

Rule 4320 (AERO for boilers) without first collecting and providing the public a chance to 

review documentation of the sources that have installed controls and the pre- and postmodification 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 

SOx and PM2.5 emissions reductions from Rule 4320 or documenting that the reductions have 

been used as offsets. EPA generally does not require pre- and post-control 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 SOx from the Rule 

in 2014, we would still conclude that the District had met its SOx commitment. The District 

committed to achieving 0.9 tpd of SOx and, if reductions from Rule 4320 are excluded, has 

achieved 1.7 tpd. See TSD, Tables F-2 and F-4. We also note that if we excluded the current 

estimate of 0.24 tpd of PM2.5, we would still conclude that the District had met its SOx

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 particles of this 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 policy assessment, EPA reviewed the latest scientific studies on 

particulate matter health effects, including the health effects of ultrafine particles, and concluded

that there is insufficient information at this time to consider adding a specific standard 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 are in the 2008 PM2.5 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 emissions 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan provides for RACM as required by CAA section 

172(c)(1).
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 205

Under the PM2.5 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 severity 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 about 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 approval. The extension of the attainment date is crucial to allow for 

development of technology, rule development and mobile fleet turnover. 

Response: The PM2.5 implementation rule requires that EPA act on an attainment date extension 

and attainment demonstration 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 SJV woman, a PM2.5 attainment date of 

April 5, 2015 must seem very distant and that date means her child's lungs will be exposed to 

PM2.5 in their most formative years. 

Response: For 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 PM2.5

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 PM2.5 levels below the standards before then.

G. Attainment Demonstration

Comment: Earthjustice 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 reductions 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: The SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP does not rely heavily on State commitment to ―adopt lastminute controls.‖ As noted previously, the bulk of the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment are from measures adopted prior to 2007. 76 FR 41338, 41354. Moreover, one of 

EPA‘s criteria for approving attainment demonstrations 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 NOx and 13.2 percent (3.0 tpd) of the PM2.5 reductions needed for attainment. Id. In 

comparison, the State has already achieved 271 tpd of NOx and 19.7 tpd of PM2.5. See 76 FR 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 disapprove the RFP 

demonstration because it fails 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 target level of emission reductions, it is 

impossible 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 comments on the precursor 

issue, EPA has found that insufficient data exist to reverse the presumption in the PM2.5

implementation rule that VOC is not a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor for attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 standards in the SJV. See 76 FR 41338, 41350 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 

modeling, EPA has found that the air quality modeling in the SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP is adequate to 

support the attainment demonstration and thus to establish the target level of emissions. As 

discussed in the 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, 41348 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 demonstration must also be updated 

to reflect corrections to the inventory.

Response: California 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: In 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 PM2.5 SIP meets EPA‘s ―milestone date fraction‖ analysis.

Response: CARB 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 and 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 207

we are concluding that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and the PM2.5

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, contends that our analysis 

relies on an RFP analysis that in turn relies on invalid NOx to PM2.5 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 

using 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 41338, 41359 (Table 

10) and 2011 Proposal TSD, p. 130. In the 2011 Progress Report, CARB states that these 

reductions are equal to at least one-year‘s worth of RFP when considered on a PM2.5 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 SOx reductions to 1 ton of PM2.5 reductions. As 

discussed in section II.B.4. of the 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 criteria 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 meet 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 programs as part 

of the 2008 PM2.5 SIP‘s contingency measures provisions; therefore, comments related to them 

are not germane to this action. In both its 2010 and 2011 proposals EPA proposed to disapprove 

the Plan‘s contingency measures provisions and is disapproving those provisions in today‘s 

action. See 75 FR 74518, 74539 and 76 FR 41338, 41358. Those provisions include the District‘s 

ozone nonattainment fee program and other incentive programs as potential contingency 

measures. 

In both proposals, we noted that 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. See ―Improving 

Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,‖ EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001). We also 

noted that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive grant programs expected to 

generate the emissions reductions. The Plan also does not identify the quantity of these emissions 

reductions that the District intended 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 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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, 41358.

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 control 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 requirement

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 models. 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 solutions 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 surplus, 

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 and 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 depends on interpollutant 

equivalency ratio between NOx and PM2.5 that is derived from the modeling. Earthjustice notes 

that CARB derived this ratio by conducting a sensitivity analysis with the model which 

 

95

 See 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 209

according to Earthjustice, EPA acknowledged was not a legitimate basis for determining 

interpollutant equivalency 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 

derived 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 

PM2.5 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 modeling 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 

allows future decreases in NOx emissions from on-road mobile sources to offset any on-road 

increases in PM2.5, using a NOx:PM2.5 ratio of 9:1. As proposed by CARB and proposed for 

approval by EPA, the trading mechanism would only be used, if needed, for conformity analyses 

for years after 2014. Also, to ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability of the 

SJV to meet the NOx budget, the NOx emissions reductions available to supplement the PM2.5

budget would only be those remaining after the 2014 NOx 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 NOx to PM2.5 ratio, which was based on the SIP‘s photochemical 

modeling, is adequate for purposes of assessing the effect of area-wide emissions 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 SOx to PM2.5 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.47. It is this latter discussion that Earthjustice 

incorrectly 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 PM2.5 SIP 

does not establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for SO2 and therefore does not establish an 

SO2:PM2.5 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 to approve and is not approving 

the RFP demonstration based on any interpollutant trading. See 2011 Progress Report, Appendix 

C, p. 1 and 76 FR 41338, 41357.

96

Comment: Earthjustice claims that a transportation agency cannot rely on budgets derived from 

what it considers to be the unapprovable SJV2008 PM2.5 SIP without violating CAA section 

176(c)(1) because they would not be able to assure that their actions would not interfere with 

timely attainment or reasonable further progress.

 

96

 CARB did reserve excess SOx reductions in the RFP demonstration to provide for direct PM2.5

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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 SIP demonstrates reasonable further progress and expeditious attainment of the 1997 

PM2.5 standards consistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA‘s implementing 

regulations. 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 Comments

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 CARB‘s intent in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report (citing p. 

11). AIR requests that EPA clarify its intent to approve a CARB commitment for staff to propose 

a rule to regulate in-use mobile agricultural equipment. AIR notes that this 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 FR 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 PM2.5 SIP for the SJV. See 76 FR 41338, 41340. We also state in section VI. 

(EPA‘s proposed 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 measures 

in the 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 agricultural 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 Revisions for 

the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 control strategy and therefore did not include 

updates to the schedule for that measure in its PM2.5 SIP 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 approval 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 measure only for 2017, which is three years after the 2014 attainment year for PM2.5.

98 AIR notes that Table F-8 in EPA‘s 2011 Proposal TSD lists the agricultural equipment rule as a defined 

measure in the 2011 Progress Report. This was an error and has been corrected in the final TSD.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 CARB 

intentionally removed that commitment from the 2007 State Strategy. AIR notes that based on 

CARB‘s website, it appears that the omission was in error, because CARB continues to represent 

to the public that it is working on the in-use agricultural equipment rule. AIR asserts, to the 

extent that CARB intentionally removed the commitment, such action violates 40 C.F.R. § 

51.102 because CARB did not provide adequate notice to the public of this fundamental change 

to CARB‘s strategy and that the 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 proposed 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 Plan 

Revisions for PM2.5, March 29, 2011. Questions and comments on the State‘s proposed revisions 

to its rulemaking schedule, including changes to the in-use agricultural equipment measure, 

should be directed to CARB during the State‘s public comment periods or at the public hearings. 

CARB‘s lists its entire rulemaking schedule for the State Strategy on prominently labeled 

tables on 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 website. 

Comment: AIR comments that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy fail to 

demonstrate a monitoring program for CARB mobile source measures and the 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 include a description of 

enforcement methods including, but not limited to, procedures for monitoring compliance with 

each of the selected control measures and procedures 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 enforcement 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, the pesticide regulation is not part of the 2008 PM2.5 SIP‘s control 

strategy; therefore, the lack of any monitoring procedures is not material to our approval of this

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 

NOx 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 PM2.5 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 ―Monitoring 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 

requirements, requiring maintenance of annual sales records, and specifying test methods for 

determining the VOC content of coatings. Because of the need to tailor monitoring procedures to 

the emissions limit, EPA evaluates a prohibitory rule‘s monitoring, recordkeeping, 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 Plan met all applicable 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 PM2.5 standards no 

later than April 5, 2015. Petitioners state that 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 PM2.5

standards are timely attained.

Response: We have fully responded to all of AIR‘s comments above. We believe that the SJV 

2008 PM2.5 SIP meets all applicable requirements of the CAA and will provide for air quality 

that meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards by April 5, 2015. 

Comment: Mr. Unger commented that he wished 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 controlled. However, we lack the 

authority to ban the use of fossil fuels.
Appendix A – CARB Rules and Measures
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 Plan. The table should include any substantive rules that would still be 

generating emissions reductions in the San Joaquin Valley during the 2005-2014 period covered 

by the Plan and thus reflected in the baseline for the Plan.

This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State‘s inspection and maintenance program adopted 

by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.

Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., 

permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address particulate matter or a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor in the SJV (e.g., asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do 

not affect emissions in the SJV (e.g., test methods).

Appendix Table A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. . T 17, CCR, 94500-94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). . T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty. . T 13, CCR, 2035-

2041, 1977 12/14/89 On-road

Non-vehicular Test Methods. . T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 

17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 

& 38391 02/08/90 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. . T 

17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. . T 17, & 26, 

CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from 

Sterilizers & Aerators. . T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/14/90 Not applicable

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD. . T 

17, CCR, 94520-94526 06/14/90 Consumer products

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard. . T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. . T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 On-road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. . T 13, CCR, 

2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical 

Waste Incinerators. . T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. . T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards. . T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On-road

Transport Mitigation Regulations. . T 17, CCR, 70600-

70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria 

and Guidelines. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-

93347

09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I. . T 

13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. . T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 

2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061.

09/28/90 On-road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. . T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I - Consumer Products. . T 17, CCR, 94507-94517 10/11/90 Consumer products
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 applicable
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 SO2. T 17, CCR, 

70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91 On-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity 

adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF 

for M85 transitional low emission vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1

11/14/91 On-road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 

2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 

2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, 

& 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 2292.3, 2292.5, 

2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d)

12/12/91 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420-2427 01/09/92 Off-road

Phase II - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 

94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507 - 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Consumer products

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels. T 13, 

& 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 03/12/92 On-road

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303, 70304 05/14/92 Not applicable

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel 

Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On-road

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 applicable
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 

2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On-road

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and 

Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, CCR, 94500-94506, 

94508, 94521

09/28/95 Consumer products

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, CCR, 

1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate 

test procedures

09/28/95 On-road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Fuels
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for 

Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test 

procedures

01/25/96 Off-road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave 

Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 60104, 

60109, 60114, 80280, 80311

05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301-

93355, Appendix A-E (emissions inventory) 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives). T 

13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, 

CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not applicable

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 

94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & OffHighway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off-road

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods . T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 Emissions Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 

91500 05/22/97 Not applicable

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements 

for Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers. T 13, 

CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures

05/22/97 On-road

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) Amendments. 

T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and 

incorporate test procedures

07/24/97 On-road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic 

Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180-2188 and 

2190-2194

12/11/97 On-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2262.6, 

2262.7 and 2265

08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-

94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 

94162

08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 17, CCR,

60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300-70306, 70303.1

10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, 

CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Off-road

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 -

94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 94137 

and revision of Method 12.

10/22/98 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and 

Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, 

CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965,

1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 

2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137-2140, 2143-2148

11/05/98 On-road

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2476 11/19/98 Off-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 2262.5(b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor 

Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for 

MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273

06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94011, 

94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP-201, 

TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6

06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On-road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2478 09/23/99 Off-road

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60040 

and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid-Term 

Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 94513 10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc...

12/09/99 Fuels

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 

2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & appendix A to article 

2.1.

01/27/00 Off-road

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On-road

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 

80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 

80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 

80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 

80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330

03/23/00 Not applicable

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency 

Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station 

Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 

17, CCR, 94011

03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air 

Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair 

Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111

04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure. 

T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 94700, 

94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing 

Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 

95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, CCR,

80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR,

90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2265, 

2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 

2262.9 and incorporated test procedures

11/16/00 Fuels

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" Test 

Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On-road

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission 

Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8 &1961

12/07/00 On-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test 

Procedure

01/25/01 On-road

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization 

of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 

1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. T 

17, CCR, 93105

07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 

2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 

2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by 

reference

07/26/01 Off-road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip 

Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium 

and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR, 93112

09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and 

Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 

94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated 

procedures

10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test procedures 10/25/01 On-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 incorporate test 

procedures and guidelines

11/15/01 On-road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential 

Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & appendices 

C & D, and 2607-2610

02/21/02 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On-road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and InUse Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2700-2710 05/16/02 On-road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, 

and 70100.1

06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 

2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 

2265, and 2296

07/25/02 Fuels

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & 

documents incorporated by reference

10/24/02 On-road

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, CCR,

60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 On-road

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out 

Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 

2273, 2260, 2273.5

12/12/02 Fuels
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 incorporate by reference

12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and InUse Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, 

CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 On-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 

PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, 

CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210

01/22/04 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 

1969 01/22/04 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 

93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5

02/26/04 Off-road

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR 

Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 2466

02/26/04 Off-road

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 

2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 On-road

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements 

for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines. T 

13, CCR, 1971

05/20/04 On-road

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for ParaDicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 

94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, 

and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 

06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, 

CCR, 2485

07/22/04 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, CCR,

94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects 

List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and 

Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 

(and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 

2266.5 

11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & Locomotives. T 

13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 

93117

11/18/04 Fuels

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension. 

T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T17, 

CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel 

Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, 

CCR, 93102.5

12/09/04 Not applicable

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 

60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 

2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4

02/24/05 On-road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, CCR,

93115

05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 

86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and 

Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD). 

T 13, CCR, 1971.1

07/21/05 On-road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 

2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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-road
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 OffRoad Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 

2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 

2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789.

05/26/06 Off-road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 94011 and 

incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 

2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 

2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465

06/22/06 Off-road

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by 

reference

07/20/06 Off-road

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 

1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 

2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On-road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207-942142 10/19/06 Other

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On-road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document 

incorporated by reference

11/16/06 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and 

Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). 

T 17, CCR, 93119

11/16/06 Off-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, Agricultural 

Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR, 93115.1-

93115.15.t.

11/16/06 Other

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not applicable

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 

94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer products
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 PM2.5 or PM2.5 Attainment Plan 

Precursors in the San Joaquin Valley

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect direct

PM2.5 or a PM2.5 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 PM2.5 (or PM), NOx, VOC, or SO2. Appendix 

Table A-2 provides a list of these measures.

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 

17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. T 17, 

& 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not a PM emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-21

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 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

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600-

70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory Criteria 

and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-

93347

09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 60200-

60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant. 

T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. seq. 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non -Vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Non - Vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 

94142 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure.

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 

90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure. Obsolete.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-22

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 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 SO2. T 17, CCR, 

70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, 

CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

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 PM2.5 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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-23

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 requirement
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-24

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 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 inventory) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, 

CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 

94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air 

Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Interchangeable Emissions Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 

91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700-90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations '97 . T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 

17,CCR 90800 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090-60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating. T

17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 -

94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 94137 

and revision of Method 12.

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-25

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-26

Appendix Table A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address PM2.5 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 

measure

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State 

PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, 

CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210

01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T17, 

CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 90803 11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 

60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 

86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and 

Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document 

incorporated by reference

11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction 

measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 60210 11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction measure

C. State Fuel Measures

CARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean 

diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel 

standards for off-road sources. Appendix Table A-3 is a list of these revisions. 
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 Renumbered to section 2281. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 

2256 12/13/90

Renumbered to section 2282. 

Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

(listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)

Diesel Fuel Regulations - Emergency. T 13, CCR, 

2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 & T 

17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, 

and incorporated test procedure

07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel 

Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & Locomotives. T 

13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 

93117

11/18/04

NOx reductions estimated at 0.1 

tpd for SJV. See CARB 6/29/09 

Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I. T 

13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996. Obsolete.

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 

2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 

2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

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 rules
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives). T 

13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Repealed sections

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, CCR, 

Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 

2262.7 and 2265

08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98

Wintertime gasoline for South 

Coast and Imperial County. Not 

applicable to the SJV area.

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for 

MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273

06/24/99 Not applicable to the SJV/SC

area/Obsolete

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 

2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 2266 etc...

12/09/99

2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 

(designation of alternative limits) 

not approved; otherwise 

superseded by 11/18/04 and 

6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2265, 

2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297,

2262.9 and incorporated test procedures

11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 

2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 

2265, and 2296

07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules

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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 

(and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 

2266.5 

11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 

2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only. Obsolete.

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a Motor 

Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emissionsreductions

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification 

Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired

D. State On-Road Mobile Sources Measures

Appendix Tables A-4 and A-5 list measures adopted by CARB since 1990 for on-road 

and off-road sources.

Appendix Table A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 & 

38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16, 1994(59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 

FR 46979 (9/13/94))

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 1900, 

1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 

2125, and 2139, 2061.

09/28/90

Waivers granted January 7, 1993 & 

April 6, 1998 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) 

& 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 

2180-2187 11/08/90 Inspection program
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 1996 (61 

FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity 

adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for 

M85 transitional low emission vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1

11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel 

Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 1960.1(k), 

1956.8(b), 1956.8(d)

3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit 

Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures. 

T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & 

Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 

1956.8(b)

12/10/92 Inspection program

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger 

Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900

01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 

FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93

Found within the scope September 

28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (October 6, 

2004))

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures. T 13, 

CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 

1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. T 

13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 Inspection program

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & 

Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 Inspection program
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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, 2001 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for 

Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 

1976 and incorporate test procedures

05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 

1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures 

(SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorporate test 

procedures

07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 

(69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic 

Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180-2188 and 

2190-2194

12/11/97 Inspection program

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance 

Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 

(both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 

2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 

2130, 2137-2140, 2143-2148

11/05/98

Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 

FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within 

the scope (1999 ZEV amendments)

December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 

(12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, CCR, 

1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program. 

Revised 2/21/06 and 12/7/06
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 zeroemission bus standards. Fleet 

requirements achieve approximately 

2 tpd NOx reductions statewide, so 

minimal effect in SJV. Federal & 

state emission standards are the 

same for 2010 MY buses.

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment 

with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission Standards for 

Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961

12/07/00

Waiver granted for LDV & HDV 

April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 

(4/22/03))

Initial notice on within-the-scope 

finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 

27114 (May 14, 2007).

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" Test 

Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001.

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of 

Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 

1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 Found within the scope December 

21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and Later. T 

13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures 10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test procedures 

and guidelines

11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21, 

2005 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01

Compliance provision. Very similar 

to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1808.01

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & appendices C 

& D, and 2607-2610

02/21/02

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program. 

Revised 12/7/06.

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, CCR, 

1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (2/5/04)
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 (5/14/07).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from 

School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emissions reductions claimed.

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents 

incorporated by reference

03/25/03 Found within the scope December 

21, 2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 

2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03

Diesel reduction program. Minimal 

reductions. See CARB, ―Staff 

Report: Initial Statement Of 

Reasons, Proposed Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Residential and 

Commercial Solid Waste Collection

Vehicles,‖ June 6, 2003, p. 53.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from 

Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non-road) January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use 

Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, CCR, 

2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology. 

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 

1969 01/22/04

Compliance provision. Very similar 

to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

86.1808.01

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 2011, 

2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 Compliance provision.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 InUse Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR section 1956.8 

and the incorporated document

10/20/05

Confirm not pre-empted or within 

the scope finding requested. Initial 

notice 75 FR 43975 (7/27/2010)

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road 

Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by

Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1

12/08/05

Diesel reduction program. Minimal 

reductions. See CARB, ―Staff 

Report: Initial Statement Of 

Reasons, Proposed Diesel Particulate 

Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled

Vehicles Owned or Operated By 

Public Agencies And Utilities,‖ 

October 21, 2005, p. 55.

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program. T 

13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 

2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189

01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission 

control labels.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. T 13, 

CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06

Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology, supporting rule for inuse control measures.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, 

& 2023.4 10/19/06

Delays ZEB requirements due to 

high bus costs and unproven 

durability, reliability and ability to 

produce the number of buses 

required by the regulation. See

Updated Information Digest.

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, CCR, 

2601-2610 and appendices A-D

12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program.

Appendix Table A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden 

Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90

Waiver granted July 5, 1995 (60 

FR 37440 (7/20/95)) 1-year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for 

Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403-2407 04/08/93
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-36

Appendix 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

Within the scope finding

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 

(11/20/00)), waiver granted 

(durability requirements),

November 10, 2003 (65 FR 65702

(11/21/03)). 

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400-2409, 

2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 

2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and the documents 

incorporated by reference

09/25/03 Waiver granted, December 11, 

2006 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2410-

2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted December 23, 1996 (61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & OffHighway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 

(11/20/00))

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles 

and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 2415 12/10/98 Within the scope finding request March 4, 2000

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03

Addition to March 4, 2000 request 

November 19, 2004. Made 

changes to riding season 

restrictions.

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by 

reference

07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission 

standards identical to EPA's.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420-

2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 

(11/20/00))
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-37

Appendix Table A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 

2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & appendix A to article 

2.1.

01/27/00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 

(75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010)

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010))

In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2449 07/26/07

Notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment (on waiver), 

75 FR 11880 (3/12/2010). 

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, 

CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 2006 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large OffRoad Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 

2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 

2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789.

05/26/06

Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007; 

adopts more stringent standards 

for 2010.

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq

12/10/98 Waiver granted March 22, 2007 

(59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007))

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 

2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 

2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by 

reference

07/26/01

Waiver granted in part March 22, 

2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 

2007)) 2007 standards waiver 

granted April 26, 2011 (76 FR 

24872 (5/3/11))

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 2111, 

2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and 

incorporated document

11/17/05

Revision to year 2007 standards in 

7/26/2001 marine inboard engine 

standards. Waiver requested 

February 7, 2008. 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 

2450-2465 03/27/97

Revised by June 22, 2006 rule 

Waiver request 

withdrawn/replaced by favor of 

December 5, 2008 request

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR 

Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 2466

02/26/04 Revised by June 22, 2006 rule
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-38

Appendix 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/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment 

Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control Measures 

and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 

93116.3

12/06/06 Expired.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and Airborne 

Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled Portable 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 2458, 2459, 

2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 93116.1, 93116.2, 

93116.3 , 93116.3.1

03/22/07

Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and comment published 

February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7194)

Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 

2470-2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, CCR, 

2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, CCR 

2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 

2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 

CFR part 59, subpart F.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 

2477

12/11/03

Waiver granted (non-road) 

January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 

(1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05

Notice of opportunity for public

hearing and comment published 

February 1, 2011 (76 FR 5586)

Within-the-scope finding and 

waiver request January 29, 2007
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page A-39

Appendix 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 emissions reductions. No 

cruise ships subject to rule call at 

SJV ports. See Initial Statement of 

Reasons for Rule, p. II-1. 

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric Engines 

Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within California 

Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline. 

T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118

12/08/05 No emissions reductions claimed 

for SJV.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and 

Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). 

T 17, CCR, 93119

11/16/06 No emissions reductions claimed

for SJV.

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 emissions reductions claimed

Commercial Harbor Craft. T 13, CCR, 2222 and 

incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New 

Aftermarket Catalytic Converters"

11/15/07 No emissions 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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 aerosol 

coating products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, 

Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, 

CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526

11/21/96

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants;

superseded by 11/17/16 rule for 

consumer products; superseded 

by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol 

coating products.

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, 

CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) Amendments. T 

17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

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 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for ParaDicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 

94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, 

and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by 

reference 

06/24/04

Approved November 4, 2009 (74 

FR 57074) (EO order date of 

5/6/05)

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 

94513 & 94523 11/17/06

Approved November 4, 2009 (74 

FR 57074) (EO order date 

9/16/07)

F. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB is required 

to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes CARB, 

in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, 

and develop test methods. The installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor recovery 

equipment is required and enforced by SJVAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622. Appendix Table A-7 is 

a list of rulemaking actions taken by CARB since 1990 that address vapor recovery equipment 

certification, defects, and/or test methods.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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

CARB sets requirements for and 

certifies vapor recovery 

equipment. District rules establish 

requirements for the installation of 

CARB-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 incorporated test procedures, CP-201, 

TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6

06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station 

Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 

17, CCR, 94011

03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency 

Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and 

Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 

94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated 

procedures

10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects. T 17, CCR, 

94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures. T 17, 

CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and 

procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, 

and incorporation by reference.

12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, CCR,

94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects 

List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated document 08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension. 

T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 94011 and 

incorporated certification 06/22/06
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 CARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in 

Appendix Tables A-2 through A-7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A-8.

Appendix Table A-8

Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing 

Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide from 

Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90

Covered by District Rule 7021. 

Emissions 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 PM2.5

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic 

Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17 & 26, 

CCR, 93107

12/10/92 Adopted as District Rule 7060.

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic Air 

Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and 

Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111

04/27/00 Mainly addresses non-VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. 

T 17, CCR, 93105

07/26/01

Controls equivalent to SJVAPCD 

Regulation VIII, approved 71 FR 

8461 (2/17/06)
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 

Equipment Refinishing Coatings Containing 

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 incorporate by reference

2/26/04

PM control measure. NOx

regulated by Rule 4702. (approved

73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)). PM 

reductions are expected to be 

achieved primarily by replacement 

of existing engines as a result of 

District rule.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, 

CCR, 93102.5

12/09/04

Air toxic control measures. Total 

emissions (chromium & nickel in 

CA are less than 200 lb per year. 

ISOR, p. IV-6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115

05/26/053/17/05

Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM 

control measure. NOx regulated by 

Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 

(1/10/08)). PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved primarily 

by replacement of existing engines 

as a result of District rule.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In-Use 

Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR,

93115.1-93115.15.t.

11/16/06

PM control measure. NOx

regulated by Rule 4702. (approved 

73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)) PM 

reductions are expected to be 

achieved primarily by replacement 

of existing engines as a result of 

District rule.
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP September 30, 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 NOx

and VOC standards for DG units 

which burn waste gas.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating 

and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 17, CCR,

93102.1-93102.16

12/07/06

Air toxic control measures. Total 

emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per 

year. ISOR, p. 49.
Appendix B – SJVAPCD Rules
Appendix Table B -1

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

June 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 Odor 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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite Comments

4204 Cotton Gin 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 71 FR 65740

(11/08/06)

Baseline measure

Feasibility study measure, PM2.5, (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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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

Feasibility study measure, PM2.5 & 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

Feasibility study measure, PM2.5 & 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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 - Feasibility study measure, ozone 

& PM2.5 (2009)

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 4/19/2011 9/16/2010

9/16/2010

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(1/04/11)

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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 4455
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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

Feasibility study measure, PM2.5 (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 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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

9/17/2010 9/17/2010

9/17/2010

10/16/2008

NPR: 76 FR 3214 

(6/3/11)

75 FR 4612

(1/19/10)

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 52894 (10/15/09) VOC measure

4607 Graphic Arts 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 74 FR 52894 

(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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 No sources

4653 Adhesives 9/16/2010 9/16/2010 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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 Commercial 

Charbroiling 9/17/2009 9/17/2009

9/17/2009

3/21/2002

NPR: 76 FR 

38340 (6/30/11)

68 FR 33005

(6/03/03)

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 measure
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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

Scheduled 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, fantype, residential central 

furnaces

10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886

(5/30/07)

Additional revisions scheduled for 2014 per 

PM2.5 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 measures
TSD for the Final Rule

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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 16, 2011

Rule No. Rule

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved

Federal Register 

Cite 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 76 FR 26609 

(5/9/11)

No emissions reduction credit allowed.