Clarifications Regarding the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan 

for the Revoked Federal 1-hr Ozone Standard

August 21, 2008 

Background

On October 8, 2004 the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (District) adopted the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

Plan (EOADP), which fulfilled the District’s plan commitment for the federal 1-hr ozone 

standard as outlined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their final 

rule approving the state of California’s request to classify the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin as extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hr ozone standard (69 FR 20551). 

Submittal of this plan to EPA also fulfilled one of three options for fulfilling 1-hr ozone 

planning requirements as outlined by EPA in their Phase I Implementation Rule for the 

federal 8-hr ozone standard [40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)]. On October 28, 2004, the California 

Air Resources Board (ARB) approved this plan and forwarded it to EPA by the 

November 15, 2004 deadline established by EPA (69 FR 20551). EPA found the 

transportation conformity budgets in the plan to be adequate on February 15, 2005 (70 

FR 7734). The 2004 EOADP became complete by operation of law on May 15, 2005 

(Section 110(k)(b) of the federal Clean Air Act). 

On June 15, 2005, EPA’s revocation of the federal 1-hr ozone ambient air quality 

standard became effective (40 CFR 50.9(b)), as described in the Phase I 

Implementation Rule for 8-hr ozone (69 FR 23951). On December 22, 2006 the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the entire Phase I 

Implementation Rule for 8-hr ozone, but later (June 8, 2007) let stand EPA’s revocation 

of the federal 1-hr ozone standard. In part because of uncertainties associated with 

litigation on the Phase I Implementation Rule for 8-hr ozone, and in part because of a 

collective focus on challenges associated with developing state implementation plans 

(SIPs) for 8-hr ozone and PM2.5, EPA delayed its approval action on the 2004 EOADP. 

In early 2008, EPA resumed their review of the plan, which was intensified due to a 

lawsuit filed by the Association of Irritated Residents and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council [No. CV 08-0227-SC (N. D. Cal.)]. This lawsuit seeks to compel the 

EPA administrator to take action on three SIP revisions submitted to EPA by the State 

of California, one of which is the 2004 EOADP (73 FR 39288). EPA developed a 

proposed consent decree with the plaintiffs and agreed to fulfill its obligations under 

Section 110(k) of the federal Clean Air Act to act on the three California SIPs by 

mutually agreed upon deadlines. EPA has agreed to sign Federal Register notices for 

the proposed approval actions by October 15, 2008, and to sign Federal Register

notices of final actions by January 15, 2009. 

After conducting a thorough review of the 2004 EOADP, EPA requested specific 

information, which if provided by ARB and the District, would facilitate their approval 

1 Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

action on the 2004 EOADP. A June 6, 2008 letter from Deborah Jordan (Director of the 

Air Division for EPA’s Region 9) to Seyed Sadredin (Air Pollution Control Officer for the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District), outlines these information needs. 

Because many of the items requested by EPA are for recent and updated information 

not available at the time the 2004 EOADP was developed, or reflect post-2004 changes 

in law, regulation or policy, ARB and the District largely view them as clarifications to the 

original plan, and do not consider them as SIP revisions. However, to accommodate 

EPA’s requests as outlined in the June 6, 2008 letter, the District is requesting that ARB 

transmit the clarifications to EPA, if accepted by the District Governing Board, for 

incorporation as part of the SIP. 

The clarifications consist of the following principal components: 

• Withdrawal of the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) portion of 

the plan (Section 4.2.5), which will be fulfilled when the District addresses the 

RACT requirements by enhancing the 8-hr ozone RACT SIP (40 CFR 51.912); 

• Updated control measure calculations demonstrating actual emission reductions 

from adopted rules, which provide a surplus of emissions reductions that is more 

than sufficient to fulfill the long-term measure commitment in the 2004 EOADP, 

thus eliminating the need for contingency measures to backstop the long-term 

measure commitment; 

• Updated ROP calculations reflecting recent EPA policy decisions regarding 

emission reductions associated with pre-1990 motor vehicle emission standards; 

and 

• Updated contingency measure discussion that reflects the excess reductions not 

needed to demonstrate ROP and excess reductions from the state’s motor 

vehicle emission control program. Additional reductions are also available from 

new control measures developed for the 2007 Ozone Plan (addressing the 

federal 8-hr ozone standard) and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, that can be used for 

contingency measures for the 2004 EOADP; upon adoption, these measures 

would provide reductions that were not used in ROP or attainment demonstration 

for 1-hr ozone and that would go into effect without further action by the District, 

ARB or EPA, therefore meeting the definition of contingency measures. 

In addition to the above items, EPA in July 2008 identified one additional clarification 

item requiring updating: 

• Motor vehicle emission data showing downward trends for all years in the 

planning horizon covered by the 2004 EOADP, not just the ROP and attainment 

years. 

The following paragraphs discuss each of these in more detail. 

2 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

The 2004 EOADP was intended to meet the RACT requirements as outlined in EPA’s 

final rule approving California’s request to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to 

extreme nonattainment for the federal 1-hr ozone standard (70 FR 20551-20552), as 

well as prior Federal Register rulemakings regarding severe nonattainment (67 FR

61784). In developing its Phase 2 Implementation Rule for the federal 8-hr ozone 

standard (published November 29, 2005 and effective January 30, 2006), EPA 

articulated new and more robust interpretations of RACT requirements first presented in 

the 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act. These interpretations included 

development of a RACT SIP to be submitted to EPA by September 15, 2006. The 

District developed its RACT SIP in 2006 and the District Governing Board adopted it on 

August 17, 2006 and transmitted it promptly to ARB for submittal to EPA. ARB 

submitted the adopted RACT SIP to EPA on January 31, 2007 as part of a package of 

five California RACT SIPs. This RACT SIP reflected a major source cutoff of 25 tpy, 

which was the major source cutoff in effect for the SJVAB under state law (California 

Health and Safety Code 42504) at the time of RACT SIP development. The 2007 

Ozone Plan prepared subsequent to the RACT SIP identified a need for future emission 

reductions to come from advanced technology, thereby necessitating the reclassification 

of the SJVAB to extreme nonattainment for 8-hr ozone, which has a major source cutoff 

of 10 tpy. Consequently, upon EPA issuance of a final rule approving the request to 

reclassify the SJVAB to extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hr ozone standard, the 

District is required to revise the RACT SIP to reflect a major source cutoff of 10 tpy. In 

anticipation of this action, the District began work on revising the RACT SIP in the fall of 

2007. In December 2007, the District issued a revised Draft RACT SIP reflecting the 

lower major source cutoff and also incorporating new Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTGs) issued by EPA. The District is now working with EPA to finalize this RACT SIP 

that will reflect extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hr ozone standard and will fulfill 

applicable CTG requirements. 

Because EPA has stated that the RACT discussion in the 2004 EOADP is not 

approvable under EPA’s post-2004 RACT implementation, the District is hereby formally 

withdrawing the RACT portion of the 2004 EOADP (Section 4.2.5) and will fill the 

resulting 1-hr ozone RACT gap with the revised 8-hr ozone RACT SIP now under 

development. EPA and the District agree that this approach is the best use of agency 

resources in fulfilling federal Clean Air Act requirements. 

Rate of Progress (ROP) and Updated Emission Reductions

The District has prepared and submitted to EPA all required federal 1-hr ozone Rate of 

Progress (ROP) documentation. The District has adopted and implemented the control 

measure commitments in the 2004 EOADP (Table 4-1 of the 2004 EOADP). Analysis 

of actual emission reductions obtained during the rule development process shows that 

the District was able to secure emission reductions greatly exceeding those predicted in 

the 2004 EOADP, even after accounting for the different emission inventories used in 

3 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

4 Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

plan development vs rule development. Table 1 shows the analysis of predicted vs. 

actual reductions for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) 

emissions for each of the District control measures in the 2004 EOADP. Results 

indicate that the rule development process 

• Met the plan’s commitment for VOC reductions and obtained over 6 tpd of 

excess reductions above and beyond those predicted. 

• Met the plan’s commitment for NOx reductions and obtained over 16 tpd of 

excess reductions above and beyond those predicted. 

ROP and Updated Pre-1990 Motor Vehicle Standards

In Table 2, the District is providing an additional ROP analysis using U.S. EPA’s nowpreferred methodology (related to pre-1990 adjustments) that demonstrates sufficient 

emission reductions to satisfy the ROP requirement, relying only on the emission control 

program as it existed when the Valley’s 2004 SIP was submitted, with at minimum three 

percent surplus reductions to satisfy the contingency measure requirement. This 

additional analysis successfully demonstrates that ROP is achieved and that sufficient 

surplus emission reductions occur to satisfy the contingency measure requirements of 

the Act. 

To provide more background on the above topic, recent EPA policy changes reduce the 

creditable emission reductions initially attached to California’s mobile source emission 

control programs for the purposes of demonstrating ROP. Although this recent change 

in policy is in dispute, the reductions from existing measures in effect at the time of plan 

adoption and as computed under the new policy are adequate to meet ROP and 

contingency requirements. As part of the Clarifications package, the District is providing 

an additional ROP analysis using U.S. EPA’s now-preferred methodology (related to 

pre-1990 adjustments) that demonstrates sufficient emission reductions to satisfy the 

ROP requirement, relying only on the emission control program as it existed when the 

2004 EOADP was submitted, with at minimum three percent surplus reductions to 

satisfy the contingency measure requirement. The federal Clean Air Act requires the 

exclusion of emission reductions from pre-1990 motor vehicle measures in emission 

reduction progress calculations in air quality plans. While the 2004 EOADP properly 

excluded those reductions from the ROP demonstration, in 2007, EPA began 

implementing a new policy that reduced the emission impact of California’s post-1990 

motor vehicle emission control programs in that calculation. This new 2007 policy 

effectively changes the ROP calculation from what was presented in the 2004 EOADP. 

However, the emission reduction surplus in the ROP calculations in the 2004 EOADP

were sufficiently large that they could absorb this change while still meeting ROP 

targets and providing adequate surplus reductions for contingency measures. This 

surplus is due to the aggressive emission reductions achieved by District and ARB rules 

and regulations in effect at the time of adoption of the 2004 EOADP. The new 2007 

EPA policy affects progress demonstrations for many California SIPS (1-hr and 8-hr 

ozone), and ARB staff is formally disputing the revised EPA policy and has entered into 

a dialogue with EPA to resolve the dispute. 
Table 1 Status of Implementation: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004 E

Attainment Plan “New Measure” Commitments 

NOx Control Measures 

Control 

Measure 

ID 

Pollutant Rule # Description Commitment (2010 - tpd) 

Achieved 

Emission 

Reduction

(2010 - tpd

C NOx 9310 Fleet rule - School buses 0.1 1.6 D NOx 9510, 3180 Indirect Source Mitigation * 4.0 4.0 

E NOx 4307 Small Boilers (2 -5 MMBTU) 1.0 5.1 

G NOx 4352 Solid fuel boilers 0.0 0.0 

H NOx 4702 Stat. IC engines 8.0 16.8 

I NOx 4309 Commercial Dryers 1.0 0.7 

N NOx New 4308 Water Heaters 0.075 -2 0.2 0.8 

Q NOx 4103 Open Burning 1.1 1.7 

S NOx 4703 Sta. Gas Turbines 0.6 1.9 

NOx totals 16.0 32.6 

* The District staff tracks reductions from ISR and reports them to the Governing Board on an annual basis. The 2007-2008 ISR annual report shows 5.7 

year, which already exceeds the plan commitment of 4 tpd in 2010. District staff believes that it is on track to meet its 2010 reduction commitment. Howe

District staff estimates achievement of the 2010 commitment without additional surplus reductions from this rule.

5 Clarifications Rega
on Control District 

6 Clarifications RegaTable 1 (Continued)

VOC Control Measures 

Control 

Measure 

ID 

Pollutant Rule # Description Commitment (2010 - tpd) 

Achieved 

Emission 

Reduction

(2010 - tpd

A VOC 4409 Oil & Gas Fug. 4.7 5.1 B VOC 4455 Ref. & Chem Fug. 0.2 0.3 

F VOC 4694 Wineries 0.7 0.8 

J VOC 4565 Composting/Biosolids 0.1 0.3 

K VOC 4602 Automotive Coating 0.1 1.0 

New 4612 (note: rule is also listed in M below for solvents only) 

L VOC 4570 CAFO Rule 15.8 17.7 

4662 Org. Solvent Degreasing 4663 Org. Sol. Cleaning 4603 Metal Parts/Products 4604 Can and Coil Coating 4605 Aerospace Coating 4606 Wood Products Coating 4607 Graphic Arts 4612 Automotive Coating 4653 Adhesives 

M VOC 

4684 Polyester Resin Operation 

1.3 3.1 

O VOC 4401 Steam-Enhanced Oil-well 1.4 0.3 

P VOC 4651 Soil Decontamination <0.05 0.0 

Q VOC 4103 Open Burning 2.9 3.9 

R VOC 4682 Polymeric Foam Mfg. 0.1 0.1 

T VOC 4621 & 4624 Gasoline storage + Trans. 0.9 1.9 

U VOC New Aviation Fuel Transf <0.05 

VOC totals 28.2 34.5 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Polluti
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

Table 2 San Joaquin Valley Rate of Progress (ROP) 

With California Pre-1990 Motor Vehicle Control Program Adjustments 

Using adopted measures only 

(Summer Planning tons per day)

 1990 2008 2010 

Baseline ROG 633.2 369.4 362.7 

California Pre-1990 Adjustment 0.0 120.1 123.8 

RACT Corrections 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Adjusted 1990 Baseline ROG in milestone year 633.2 513.1 509.4 

ROP commitment for ROG reductions from new measures 0 0 0 

Required % change since previous milestone year (ROG or 

NOx) compared to 1990 51% 6% 

Required % change since 1990 (ROG or NOx) 51% 57% 

Target ROG levels 251.4 219.0 

Apparent shortfall in ROG 118.0 143.7 

Apparent shortfall in ROG, % 23.0% 28.2% 

ROG shortfall previously provided by NOx substitution, % 0 23.0% 

Actual ROG shortfall, % 23.0% 5.2% 

 

Baseline NOx 805.1 411.0 384.5 

California Pre-1990 Adjustment 0.0 114.0 116.6 

Adjusted 1990 Baseline NOx in milestone year 805.1 691.1 688.5 

ROP commitment for NOx reductions from new measures 0 0 0 

Change in NOx since 1990 280.1 304.0 

Change in NOx since 1990, % 40.5% 44.2% 

NOx reductions since 1990 already used for ROP substitution 

and contingency through last milestone year, % 0.0% 26.0% 

NOx reductions since 1990 available for ROP substitution and 

contingency in this milestone year, % 40.5% 18.2% 

Change in NOx since 1990 used for ROG substitution in this 

milestone year, % 23.0% 5.2% 

Change in NOx since 1990 available for contingency in this 

milestone year, % 3.0% 3.0% 

Change in NOx since 1990 surplus after meeting substitution and 

contingency needs in this milestone year, % 14.5% 12.9% 

ROP shortfall, if any 0.0% 0.0% 

ROP Met? YES YES 

Contingency Met? YES YES 

Section 182(g) of the federal Clean Air Act requires nonattainment areas to determine if 

they have achieved the emission reductions identified during previous three-year ROP 

intervals as being needed to meet the ROP milestones for the intervals in question. The 

District has complied with this requirement. Of principal interest to the 2004 EOADP are 

the ROP milestone years of 2002, 2005, 2008 and the attainment year of 2010. The 

District’s Section 182(g) report for the 2002 milestone year is presented in Section 7.6.2 

of the 2004 EOADP, which shows that reductions achieved their targets. For the 2005 

ROP milestone year, the District sent to EPA, through ARB, a milestone compliance 

demonstration report showing that the District met its 2005 ROP emission reduction 

7 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

targets.1 The next required Section 182(g) milestone compliance demonstration report 

is for calendar year 2008 and is due to EPA by March 31, 2009. 

Contingency Measures

As noted above, contingency measure requirements refer to those needed for ROP and 

attainment milestones [Sections 127(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)] as well as the need for longterm measure contingencies [Section 182(e)(5)]. The ROP analysis submitted with this 

Clarification Package and discussed above shows that excess emission reductions 

were available from adopted measures at the time of plan development to meet the 

ROP and attainment contingency requirements. In addition, the state’s motor vehicle 

emission control program provides excess reductions that can be used for attainment 

year contingencies (see next section). 

The 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan all contain control measures that the 

District is committed to adopting and that were not used in demonstrating ROP or 

attainment in the 2004 EOADP. For these reasons, the reductions from the post-2004 

plans meet the definition for contingency measures, provided the timing of the 2007 

Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan reductions is helpful for 1-hr ozone milestones (i.e., 

the reductions occur in time to help meet 1-hr ozone milestones for ROP or attainment). 

Inspection of Table 6-1 in the 2007 Ozone Plan shows that District control measures will 

achieve about 2.3 tpd of NOx reductions in 2008, and 4.4 tpd in 2011 (expressed as 

summer emissions). The 2008 reductions would represent contingency reductions for 

the 2008 ROP milestone, and later reductions through 2011 would represent 

contingency reductions for attainment. Inspection of Table 6-3a in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

shows annual NOx reductions of about 2.4 tpd in 2009, 3.2 tpd in 2010, and 4.3 tpd in 

2011. Because these PM2.5 Plan reductions are from the same control measures as 

those used from the 2007 Ozone Plan, the reductions are not cumulative. For the 

purposes of this Clarification documentation, the PM2.5 Plan reductions will be used 

since they reflect a more up to date inventory. Thus the 2008 PM2.5 Plan provides 

attainment year contingency reductions of about 4.3 tpd of NOx. 

In regards to the need for contingency measures for long-term or advanced technology 

measures, District rulemakings reduce emissions to a sufficient level to fulfill the 

advanced technology or long-term contingency measure requirement. In other words, 

the District’s adopted rules from the control measures in the 2004 EOADP exceed 

predictions of reductions by over 16 tpd of NOx and over 6 tpd of VOC; this excess 

more than covers the long-term measure reductions of 5 tpd of NOx and 5 tpd of VOC. 

Because these rules have been adopted locally and submitted by the State to U.S. EPA 

for inclusion into the SIP as required by section 182(e)(5), there is no need for additional 

contingency measures to satisfy the 182(e)(5) requirements. The specific requirement 

for contingency measures to backstop the long-term measure commitments under 

Section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act has been met because of the District 

adoption of rules that completely fulfill the long-term measure commitment. 

 

1

 Letter from Scott Nester, Director of Planning to Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, California Air 

Resources Board, March 30, 2006. 

8 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

Motor Vehicle Emission Trends

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the federal Clean Air Act requires nonattainment areas classified 

as severe or above to adopt and submit transportation control measures sufficient to 

offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or number of 

vehicle trips and to provide for ROP. EPA's interpretation of this provision allows areas 

to satisfy the requirement if they demonstrate that emissions from motor vehicles 

decline each year through the attainment year--see EPA's General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, April 16, 1992 (57 

FR 13522). While the 2004 EOADP shows a decline in motor vehicle emissions from 

the base year through the attainment year (Table 3-1), it only does so for ROP years 

and the attainment year. Table 3 below presents data for the intervening years and 

further illustrates the downward trend in emissions. In addition, the table shows that 

existing motor vehicle emissions standards and normal fleet turnover combine to 

produce a significant surplus in emission reductions in 2011 beyond the levels assumed 

in the attainment demonstration (an additional 10 tpd of NOx and 5 tpd of VOC (ROG) 

from 2010 to 2011, as shown below in Table 3). As stated above, this reduction helps 

to fulfill the requirement for contingency measures for the attainment year. 

Table 3 Baseline Motor Vehicle Emissions, 1 2000-2010 

(San Joaquin Valley, Summer Planning, in tons per day) 

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ROG 115 107 100 93 88 82 77 72 67 63 59 54 

NOx 223 218 211 201 192 184 176 166 157 148 137 127 

1

Emissions shown here are from the CCOS emission inventory, v2.11_RF932PEI. Table 3-1 in the 

2004 EOADP presents output from that inventory for the year 2000 and the milestone years of 

2008 and 2010. Emissions shown in this enclosure do not include reductions from new measure 

commitments in the 2004 EOADP. 

Conclusions

Much of the updated information gathered and developed for this Clarification package 

reflects the difficult work accomplished by the District and ARB in aggressively reducing 

emissions of ozone precursors in the time frame since the 2004 EOADP was developed 

and adopted. Virtually all of the updates confirm the approvability of the various 

components of the plan. Emission reductions exceed predictions, federal ROP 

milestones have been met, and all of the plan commitments, including sufficient 

emission reductions for contingency measures, have been met. The one exception is 

the RACT section, which was intended to meet RACT requirements specified by EPA at 

the time but does not meet EPA’s new and enhanced interpretation of RACT 

requirements in the federal Clean Air Act. Consequently, the District is formally 

withdrawing the RACT element of the 2004 EOADP, thus creating a federal 1-hr ozone 

RACT gap that will be filled by submitting to EPA a revised 8-hr ozone RACT SIP. 

9 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District August 21, 2008

Clarifications Regarding the 2004 EOADP 

This page intentionally blank. 

10