San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan

Appendix I

Summary of 

Significant 

Comments and 

Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan

SJVUAPCD
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan

This page intentionally blank.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-1 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE 

NOVEMBER PROPOSED PM2.5 PLAN 

WRITTEN COMMENTS, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PROPOSED PLAN

14 comment letters were received following the posting of the Proposed 2012 PM2.5 Plan

on November 20, 2012.

Alvernaz, Colette (Alvernaz)

Bingham, Susan (Bingham)

Bowen, Rosita (Bowen)

Bucknell, Lee (Bucknell)

Concerned Citizen (Citizen)

Cook, Jim (Cook)

David, Milton C., MD (David)

Eden, Vicki (Eden)

Guith, David (Guith)

Hesson, Steve (Hesson)

Lemos, Roxanne (Lemos)

Macfarlane, Peter and Emmy (Macfarlane)

Schmitt, Gwen & Brent (Schmitt)

Witt, Paul (Witt)

District note: The vast majority of public comments received during this comment period,

summarized below, are related to Rule 4901 and general air quality concerns.

1. COMMENT: All wood burning should be terminated in the Valley for both health 

and aesthetic reasons. (Guith)

RESPONSE: The current PM2.5 plan commitment is a proposal to lower the wood 

burning curtailment threshold to minimize emissions build-up during multi-day 

periods of stagnation. This is expected to increase the number of “no burn” days, 

though the exact increase in “no burn” days will depend on future air quality. Wood 

burning would still be allowed when dispersion is good and such activity would not 

be expected to lead to unhealthy 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations. 

2. COMMENT: The District should not amend Rule 4901 to increase the number of 

no-burn days because Valley residents rely on wood burning devices for heating 

during the winter, and further limiting their use could create more of an economic 

burden. (Alvernaz, Bingham, Macfarlane, Schmitt, Witt)

RESPONSE: Achieving additional emissions reductions from residential wood 

combustion is critical for the Valley to reach attainment of EPA’s 2006 PM2.5 

standard. The proposed rule amendment would also achieve significant health 

benefits for Valley residents. A number of issues associated with lowering the 

curtailment threshold would need to be addressed in the process of amending Rule 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-2 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

4901, including the economic impact to Valley residents, and how clean certified 

devices would be treated under a lower threshold. The District would amend Rule 

4901 under a full public process where all options would be evaluated, and public 

comments would be taken and considered. 

3. COMMENT: EPA certified stoves and pellet stoves should not be subject to Valley 

“No Burn” day restrictions, since these devices burn much cleaner than fireplaces 

and non-certified wood stoves. Consideration should be given to those who have 

made an investment in these cleaner burner technologies. (Bucknell, Hesson, 

Lemos)

RESPONSE: The District commits to analyze the feasibility of allowing the use of 

clean certified wood-burning devices at some curtailment levels during the next ruleamending process. Enforcing this added flexibility would be difficult, given the 

challenge in distinguishing wood smoke emissions from various wood burning 

devices, and the District would explore various options during the rule development 

process for ensuring that this issue is addressed. The District values the cleaner 

burning technology that has been developed in recent years, as demonstrated by 

the implementation of the District’s Burn Cleaner Program, which was implemented 

to help Valley residents upgrade their current wood-burning devices and open 

fireplaces to natural gas or propane devices, or clean pellet devices. 

4. COMMENT: Time and resources could be better spent if the Valley was split into 

two regions, north and south, instead of issuing and enforcing individual county burn 

restrictions. Living on one side or the other of a county line is arbitrary since smoke 

travels and can affect neighboring counties. (Lemos)

RESPONSE: The District focuses on county-level forecast areas for several 

reasons: (1) to better allow for ease of communication to the public; (2) to make 

best use of the hourly PM2.5 data available from monitoring sites throughout the 

Valley; and (3) to allow residents to use wood burning devices when that activity is 

not projected to result in unhealthy PM2.5 levels in their area or downwind areas. 

5. COMMENT: If the Valley has a “no burn” day, the Bay Area (BAAQMD) should 

impose a “no burn” day too, since the winds carry their smoke over the mountains 

and become trapped in our Valley. (Lemos)

RESPONSE: The Valley’s exceedances of 24-hour PM2.5 standards typically 

occur during periods of stagnation (no wind) in the Valley, limiting the ability of 

transport of emissions from other air basins into the Valley. With that said, while the 

District does not have regulatory authority over the BAAQMD, the BAAQMD has 

adopted a wood burning curtailment program that helps to minimize emissions. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-3 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

6. COMMENT: The District should better address almond and walnut harvesting, 

which is still generating significant pollutant emissions. The District should conduct 

more studies to determine the effect of these practices on our air quality and 

evaluate practices that can reduce emissions. (Citizen, David, Eden)

RESPONSE: District Rule 4550 (Conservation Management Practices) addresses 

fugitive dust emissions from agricultural operations, including requirements to 

reduce emissions from nut harvesting operations. There is ongoing research on 

new technology that can reduce emissions from harvesting nuts, and the District 

has also committed to further study the effectiveness of CMPs in reducing PM2.5 

emissions and PM2.5 concentrations. 

7. COMMENT: Air quality is a major issue year-round according to pulmonary 

specialists. The focus should also be during the summer when farming and trucking 

are at peak. (Cook)

RESPONSE: The District’s air quality strategies address both PM2.5 (generally a 

winter issue) and ozone (generally a summertime issue). The Valley must continue 

to make air quality progress to reach EPA’s air quality standards for both PM2.5 and 

ozone. Since oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are a precursor to both, NOx emissions 

reductions are a key part of District’s overall air quality strategies. This 2012 PM2.5 

Plan focuses on PM2.5, but many strategies in the plan also benefit ozone. The 

District also has plans focused specifically on ozone.

8. COMMENT: The District should consider pushing wreckage off the road to reduce 

pollution from backed up traffic on Freeway 99 due to collisions, similar to other

cities like San Francisco. Trucks should also be restricted to one lane within the city 

limits at a reduced speed limit until extra lanes are added. (Cook)

RESPONSE: The District does not have regulatory authority over traffic conditions 

or speed limits. 

9. COMMENT: Permits and inspections need to be established for high polluting twostroke engines, such as those in blowers and lawn mowers. (Cook)

RESPONSE: The District is pursuing emissions reductions from lawn care 

equipment through its incentive programs for both commercial and residential lawn 

care. The District has committed to continuing these programs and to further study

of this source category. See the discussion in Appendix D for more information. 

10. COMMENT: The District should consider regulating emergency equipment and tow 

trucks because these types of vehicles are heavy polluters and are often left idling 

for extended periods. (Cook)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-4 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The District does not have regulatory authority over trucks or 

vehicles. ARB has a regulation addressing idling of sleeper berth equipped diesel 

trucks, but does not regulate idling of other diesel trucks at this time.

11. COMMENT: The air quality greatly impacts the severity of allergies and it should be 

improved. (Bowen)

RESPONSE: The Valley’s air quality has greatly improved over the past couple of 

decades, and it will continue to improve under this and other attainment plans. 

Under its Risk-based Strategy, the District continues to study air quality health 

impacts, inform the public of current air quality conditions, evaluate the health 

benefits of its attainment strategies, and prioritize programs that improve public 

health. 

12. COMMENT: The District should consider hourly usage as a part of the evaluation 

for replacing/upgrading agricultural equipment. It is not economically feasible to 

replace an older tractor that is only used for a limited number of hours in a year. 

(Alvernaz)

RESPONSE: The District does consider hourly usage as part of its Agricultural 

Tractor/Mobile Equipment Replacement Program. This program requires applicants 

to report annual operation measured in hours. This data is used with engine 

information and details on the replacement equipment to determine the emissions 

that will be reduced by the replacement project. All projects funded in the program 

must meet a cost effectiveness threshold, ensuring that the most cost-effective

replacements are funded with District resources. The program uses the cost 

effectiveness limit set by ARB’s Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards 

Attainment Program.

13. COMMENT: There is confusion in determining which government agency controls 

which emission sources. The agency that controls wood burning says they cannot

control the smoking trucks, and vice versa. It seems as though wood burning 

restrictions are passed more easily than truck and bus regulations. (Lemos)

RESPONSE: Local air districts, such as the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, have regulatory authority over stationary sources (for example, 

industrial sources) and area sources (such as residential wood combustion)

whereas the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has regulatory authority over 

mobile sources (such as on-road vehicles, like trucks, and off-road vehicles, like 

construction equipment). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-5 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

14. COMMENT: The District should consider land-use decisions to reduce air pollution 

in the Valley such as: limit drive-thru lanes to handicap use only; plant lowmaintenance plants instead of grass on roadway medians to cut down on the use of 

lawn care equipment; encourage multi-use neighborhoods; and require truck stops 

to be built with plug-in stations to allow trucks to be plugged in overnight to keep 

truck loads cool and cut down on idling. (Alvernaz)

RESPONSE: The District does not have regulatory authority over land-use 

planning decisions, but does perform California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

review of certain land-use projects to ensure projects do not worsen air quality in 

the Valley. While the District does not have regulatory authority to mandate plug-in 

stations at Valley truck stops, the District’s Public Benefit Grant Program provides 

funding to a variety of clean-air public-benefit projects for cities, counties, special 

districts, and public educational institutions located within the District. One of the 

program options is “New Electric Vehicle Infrastructure,” which provides funding 

towards new electric charging units. This program component is still under 

development, but this could be an option in the future for cities and/or counties to 

receive funding for additional charging stations at public rest areas.

15. COMMENT: “Bedroom communities” in the Valley, which serve as resting stops for 

commuters to and from the Bay Area, increase commute time and poor air quality. 

The District should educate the cities and counties that being bedroom communities 

for the Bay Area is not beneficial for air quality. (Alvernaz)

RESPONSE: Although the District does not have land use authority, the District 

continues to serve as a resource to cities and counties during their planning and 

CEQA processes. Through “Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans” and CEQA 

review, the District recommends a variety of more air quality-friendly practices that 

can be incorporated into developments and city planning. Also, many new 

developments are subject to the District’s Indirect Source Review (ISR) rule, which 

enforces requirements to mitigate or offset emissions resulting from construction as 

well as increased traffic. 

The Valley’s “vehicle miles traveled” (VMT) is carefully analyzed in the District’s air 

quality plans. The District will continue to support programs to reduce commuterelated motor vehicle emissions reductions through its Healthy Air Living outreach, 

vanpool incentive program, and Employer-based Trip Reduction rule.

16. COMMENT: Cities and counties should design development plans that allow for 

increased traffic flow. Intentionally building and knowing the roadways may not be 

able to handle increased traffic from new development will worsen air quality. 

(Alvernaz)

RESPONSE: Mobile source emissions are an important consideration during the 

air quality planning process. While the District does not have authority to mandate
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-6 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

particular transportation development patterns, the District works closely with ARB 

and the county Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to coordinate data and 

analysis of on-road mobile sources. The District’s plan includes “mobile source air 

pollutant emissions budgets,” and MPO transportation planning efforts must make 

sure that air pollutant emissions resulting from their transportation networks and 

mobile source activities in their counties are within those emissions levels. 

17. COMMENT: The District should educate cities and counties on the importance of 

their planning designs and CEQA Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), and 

require an adequate review of air quality issues within these documents. Cities and 

counties should also not be exempt from obtaining permits and undergoing CEQA 

review for city projects. (Alvernaz)

RESPONSE: The District has several resources, including the Guide for Assessing 

and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), made available to assist agencies in 

assessing air quality impacts and to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). CEQA requires agencies to assess and disclose environmental impacts 

including air quality impacts for any development project subject to CEQA. As a 

Responsible or Trustee agency under the CEQA, the District will review the air 

quality assessment provided by the Lead Agency in the environmental document to 

ensure the air quality impacts are properly addressed and evaluated, and will 

provide comments. The District will also recommend mitigation measures that can 

assist in reducing the air quality impacts to the extent feasible as required under 

CEQA. 

District permits are applicable to any entity or stationary source within the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin subject to District rules and regulations. Any applicable 

stationary source within a development project will not be exempt from District 

permitting. However, CEQA dictates what projects are exempt or not exempt from a 

CEQA review and provides the framework on how cities and counties are to assess 

environmental impacts.

18. COMMENT: The District should not issue permits to developers without notifying 

the property owners. The District should also make sure the project matches the 

actual project description and verify that the project it is not violating other land 

uses. (Alvernaz)

RESPONSE: The District only issues permits to applicants/developers for sources 

that meet the applicability requirements of District rules and regulations and has a 

process for notifying the public about proposed projects. The District cannot make

land use decisions, but has a process for evaluating District permitting projects 

under CEQA, and mitigating emissions impacts from developments through its 

Indirect Source Review Rule.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-7 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

LATE WRITTEN COMMENTS, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 PROPOSED PLAN

A comment letter was received from Earth Justice after the close of the written comment 

period for the Proposed 2012 PM2.5 Plan on November 20, 20121.

19. COMMENT: The District has not supported the 2019 attainment date. The plan 

should assess the ability to attain the standard by an earlier date, considering the 

additional control measure suggestions included in this letter. 

RESPONSE: Attaining the federal PM2.5 standard is extremely challenging, 

particularly in the southern Valley, and will require tremendous reductions in 

emissions. Based on the extensive body of science developed through the San 

Joaquin Valley Study Agency’s Central Valley Particulate Air Quality Study 

(CPRAQS), reductions in NOx emissions reductions are particularly important for 

reducing PM2.5 concentrations. To achieve the NOx reductions critical for reaching 

attainment in the Valley, ARB has adopted regulations that will significantly reduce 

NOx emissions from various mobile sources. However, achieving the level of 

needed emissions reductions requires is tremendously costly and requires time. 

The reductions will ultimately be achieved in time to bring most of the Valley into 

attainment well before 2019, with the exception of Bakersfield.

To illustrate, in order for Bakersfield to attain a year earlier by 2018, an additional 

2.4 tons per day of NOx reductions would be needed in Kern County. To put this in 

perspective, achieving this level of emissions reductions is equivalent to virtually 

eliminating all passenger vehicles in Kern County. The District’s “no stone 

unturned” evaluation of emissions sources and emissions controls did not reveal 

any additional reasonably available emissions reductions opportunities that could 

expedite attainment, with all new control strategies proposed for implementation by 

2017. There are no unused control strategies available that could achieve the 

reductions necessary to accelerate attainment, because every reasonable control 

measure is already included in the plan. Thus, since the modeled emissions targets 

cannot be achieved for the entire San Joaquin Valley before 2019, and 2019 is the 

most expeditious attainment year available.

20. COMMENT: The Plan improperly ignores ammonia controls. The District’s 

rationale, focused on the relative effectiveness of precursor reductions, is not one of 

the tests outlined by EPA to justify ignoring precursor controls. The District should 

evaluated cost-effectiveness of ammonia control measures. The analysis of 

ammonia controls in Chapter 5 is insufficient. The plan should include controls on 

stationary sources of ammonia. 

RESPONSE: Although the plan shows expeditious attainment and includes a 

comprehensive control strategy for direct PM2.5 emissions and significant PM2.5 

 

1 The comment letter from Earth Justice was submitted on behalf of the Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment, 

the Coalition for Clean Air, Fresno Metro Ministry, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Association of 

Irritated Residents, medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-8 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

precursors, the District and ARB explored the effectiveness of ammonia reductions 

in reducing PM2.5 concentrations. EPA’s 2007 Fine Particle Implementation states 

that ammonia is presumed not to be a PM2.5 attainment precursor, but that the 

presumption can be reversed based on an acceptable technical demonstration 

showing that ammonia emissions significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in 

a given area. The review of the extensive science available on this subject and new 

modeling conducted for this plan concludes that reducing ammonia emissions is 

orders of magnitude less effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations than reducing 

directly emitted PM2.5 or NOx emissions. Additionally, the District has already 

reduced ammonia emissions from confined animal facilities, the largest source of 

ammonia emissions under its jurisdiction, by 100 tons per day through adoption of 

Rule 4570, the most stringent rule of its kind in the nation. The District has not 

found additional feasible measures that could significantly reduce ammonia 

emissions. Despite this current understanding of ammonia’s relative insignificance 

as a precursor, the District has added a further study commitment to the plan to 

continue to analyze and support studies regarding ammonia emissions from 

confined animal facilities, for the purpose of evaluating the potential effectiveness of 

ammonia controls in reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the Valley. 

21. COMMENT: The Plan must provide documentation that condensable PM2.5 

emissions are reflected in the emissions inventory and that the analysis of controls 

includes these emissions.

RESPONSE: While this issue may be new and more relevant to other regions, the 

District has historically included condensable particulate emissions in its definition of 

total particulate emissions, well ahead of federal and other states’ efforts to address 

this issue. This has included instituting permit requirements for various emissions 

sources that include condensable particulates as part of total particulate emissions 

limitations, and associated emissions testing requiring that condensable particulates 

be measured (including utilizing an EPA-approved modified test method ahead of 

EPA’s official test method). Condensable particulates are thus a part of the total 

PM2.5 inventory, and reductions in condensable particulate matter emissions were 

included in the District’s evaluation of various emission reduction opportunities for 

directly emitted PM2.5. Additional clarification regarding this issue is included in 

Chapter 4 of the plan.

22. COMMENT: The analysis does not include State or other control measures. The 

analysis should include consideration of available State mobile source controls, 

transportation control measures, and controls on new stationary and indirect

sources that will limit emissions growth. The District needs to work with the relevant 

agencies to explore the full range of emission reduction strategies that could 

advance attainment. Concluding that because California has some of the most 

stringent control measures in the country, nothing more is required under RACM is 

insufficient. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-9 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The District works with ARB and the Valley’s Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations in compiling attainment plans, including control measures. Chapter 5 

of the plan (Section 5.2.1) describes RACM requirements, noting that 

reasonableness must drive the analysis, and that RACM is a collection of measures 

that, taken as a group, advance attainment of the PM2.5 standard by at least one 

year. Technological feasibility and cost-effectiveness are the foundation of this 

analysis. Appendix C (Section C.10) notes that EPA very recently (2011) approved 

the California mobile source control program as RACM in the context of the most 

recent attainment plans. Subsequent to EPA’s RACM approval, ARB strengthened 

its controls further, adopting the Advanced Clean Cars measure. There are no

additional reasonably available control measures that could be implemented at the 

state level that have not been adopted (Chapter 9). All reasonable transportation 

control measures are being implemented by the MPOs (Section C.11.4). 

23. COMMENT: The RACM analysis does not consistently evaluate expanding rule 

applicability to smaller sources. It does not provide sufficient information to assess 

whether the District has explored such options.

RESPONSE: The District evaluated all potential opportunities to reduce emissions 

from sources, as presented in Appendix D of this plan. These evaluations included 

rule applicability and removal of exemptions. For situations where staff was able to 

identify a potential opportunity by amending one of these portions of a rule, it is 

evaluated and discussed in Appendix D. 

24. COMMENT: The Risk-based Strategy is flawed, misguided, and does not reflect 

sound science. The District’s attempt to prioritize controls is overly simplistic and in 

certain circumstances misleading (for example, it does not address how much 

weight to give various health endpoints relative to other health endpoints). The 

District should drop this effort.

RESPONSE: It appears from this comment that the commenter may not 

understand the purpose of the District’s Risk-Based Strategy. Under the Riskbased Strategy, the District pursues health-protective programs designed to 

maximize public health improvements resulting from the District’s attainment plans 

and other strategies. This approach of maximizing public health is acknowledged 

and encouraged by EPA in its March 2012 implementation guidance memo. Within 

this guidance, and as discussed in this plan, EPA recognizes the distinction in 

health impact associated with different types of particulate matter species. This 

recognition adds a critical additional dimension to the preparation of this plan that 

only enhances the health benefits potentially achieved through various strategies. 

Rather than opposing this public-health driven strategy, opponents could instead 

make suggestions or otherwise assist the District in strengthening the strategy.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-10 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

25. COMMENT: The plan should include new modeling showing emissions reductions 

needs, including reductions needed to attain in 2014.

RESPONSE: Development of this plan included extensive modeling efforts well 

beyond any PM2.5 modeling conducted in the past. ARB, working closely with the 

District, utilized a modeling protocol consistent with federal modeling guidance, and 

solicited feedback from independent researchers, experts, and EPA in developing 

the modeling protocol. While future year modeling may appear to be year specific 

(ex: 2019), it is really modeling emissions levels to determine what emissions levels 

are necessary to reach attainment. Once the emissions levels for attainment are 

determined (see the carrying capacity diagrams in Figures 4-15 through 4-24), the 

District evaluates the earliest year those emissions targets could be achieved 

(Chapter 9). As described in the response to comment 19, the majority of the Valley 

is projected to reach attainment before 2019 through the aggressive emissions 

reductions included in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, with Bakersfield/Kern County the most 

challenging and last area to ultimately achieve attainment in 2019.

26. COMMENT: The plan should include controls for growth of stationary source 

emissions. Changing NSR would be an easy way to ensure that new sources will 

not undermine the progress the plan seeks to achieve from existing sources. The 

District should increase offset ratios.

RESPONSE: Growth is calculated as a part of the inventory that is used in the plan, 

so demonstrations of attainment already include growth. NSR is not designed to 

generate reductions in emissions. There are a multitude of source-specific rules 

that are designed to reduce emissions. NSR is intended to allow for growth without 

interfering with attainment, and the District has shown in the plan that NSR does 

exactly that.

27. COMMENT: The plan should add additional controls for indirect source emissions. 

ISR should be strengthened to (1) expand applicability, (2) increase the emission 

reductions required, (3) require sources to provide some minimum emission 

reductions before being allowed to mitigate through payment of fees, and (4) add 

limits on PM2.5.

RESPONSE: The District is the first air agency to adopt an indirect source rule 

regulating new development projects. The District’s rule is recognized as the 

benchmark, or best available control, for regulating indirect sources. The legal 

issues associated with adopting and implementing indirect source regulations are 

numerous and complex, as is evidenced by the fact that the District has spent over 

five years successfully defending its existing rule in state and federal court.

ISR already includes a stringent applicability threshold that applies to a wide range 

of new developments. For example, the rule applies to transit projects where 

construction exhaust emissions result in a total of 2 tpd of NOx and PM10 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-11 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

combined– this applicability threshold is lower than the federal definition of major 

sources. Given the existing stringent requirements, expanding rule applicability to 

increase emissions reductions required would not be reasonable or cost-effective. 

Requiring minimum emissions reductions before mitigating through payment would 

have no net benefit on emissions reductions. For the mobile sources targeted 

under ISR, the PM10 emissions involved are almost all PM2.5 emissions, so the 

current PM10 limits are largely PM2.5 limits. More specific recommendations 

regarding what, in particular, could be expanded in the rule would assist the District 

to more fully consider this comment in the future.

28. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of revising Rule 9410 to 

increase incentives and expand coverage.

RESPONSE: Rule 9410 is a prohibitory rule and as such does not provide 

incentives. Rule 9410 is a unique rule, and full implementation is still being phased 

in. It would be premature to consider expanding coverage until the full effectiveness 

of the implemented rule can be evaluated. EPA has not yet approved District Rule 

9410 as a revision to the SIP. 

29. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of new fleet rules for 

government-owned fleets. South coast has nine separate fleet rules. 

RESPONSE: Advancing the turnover of fleets is a critical component of reducing 

emissions. ARB has adopted fleet rules that have greatly reduced emissions from 

public fleet vehicles. The District also operates some of the most effective and 

robust vehicle grant programs in the nation. The District will continue to look into 

opportunities for new fleet rules, but at this time the District advances the turnover 

of fleets through the use of incentive funds.

30. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of limiting drive-through 

operations (limit hours of operation, restrict new construction, etc.).

RESPONSE: Drive-through operations are an indirect source of emissions in that 

they attract motor vehicle emissions. The District regulates indirect sources of 

emissions above the applicability thresholds of ISR (Rule 9510), but most drivethrough operations fall below these thresholds given their low levels of emissions. 

In some instances, the potential benefits could also be completely offset by 

vehicles idling in parking lots while one of the passengers go into the restaurant, or 

by increased cold-start emissions in cases where engines are shut down. There 

would also be enforceability issues, particularly for limited hours of operations. As 

motor vehicle emissions decrease in general with cleaner engines, the potential 

benefit of limiting drive-through operations decrease further. That said, 

encouraging people to avoid voluntarily avoid drive-throughs is part of the District’s 

Healthy Air Living Program.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-12 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

31. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of usage fees on diesel trucks, 

for example tolls.

RESPONSE: The District already collects DMV fees for trucks that are registered in 

the Valley. It would take an act of Congress to allow for the establishment of toll 

roads in the Valley in a manner that would reduce emissions. Under federal law, 

there are many limits on how and for what purpose the tolls are collected; for 

example, collected revenues are typically dedicated to road maintenance and toll 

operation (23 USC Sections 129 and 131), which would not affect PM2.5 levels in 

the Valley. Any other types of fees on diesel trucks would potentially constitute a 

tax, requiring a 2/3 majority vote of support in each of the Valley’s eight counties

under Proposition 26. Further, this comment appears to conflict with other Earth 

Justice comments opposing the District’s efforts to gain SIP credit for its incentive 

programs. The District would hope that Earth Justice would consistently support the 

District in its SIP creditability effort prior to advocating for the collection of new fees.

32. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of subsidies to encourage 

public transit for cities and rural areas.

RESPONSE: The District currently provides incentives for public transportation 

subsidies, such as transit and rail and vanpool subsidies, through the Public 

Transportation and Commuter Vanpool Subsidy Component of the District’s 

REMOVE II Grant Program. Funding for public transportation kiosks and the 

construction of Park-and-Ride lots is also available through this program 

component. 

33. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of investment in new transit 

serving the 99 corridor (South Coast is investing major funding in light rail). 

RESPONSE: As noted in Appendix C, Section C.11.4, improved transit is

incorporated in regional transportation plans as opportunities and funding allow, and 

is beyond the scope of the District’s regulatory authority. 

34. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of carpool lanes in Fresno and 

Bakersfield.

RESPONSE: As noted in Appendix C, Section C.11.4, high occupancy vehicle

lanes are incorporated in regional transportation plans as opportunities and funding 

allow, and is beyond the scope of the District’s regulatory authority. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-13 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

35. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of time-use restrictions on dirty 

diesel trucks and equipment.

RESPONSE: EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule notes that reasonability must drive 

control measure analysis, and that any measures that are absurd, unenforceable, 

impractical, or that would cause severely disruptive socioeconomic impacts would

not be required. Time-use restrictions on dirty diesel trucks and equipment could 

have potentially devastating socioeconomic consequences, and may be 

unreasonable and impractical. In addition, PM2.5 exceedances occur during multiday periods of stagnation, so effective time-use restrictions would be overly broad. 

That said, the District prioritizes the replacement of diesel trucks and equipment 

through its incentive programs. 

36. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 4103

(Open Burning) to eliminate exemptions and ensure that open burning is not 

allowed to occur on any day that fireplace burning is prohibited. 

RESPONSE: The District evaluated the feasibility and cost effectiveness of 

alternatives to burning in the 2010 Final Staff Report and Recommendations for 

Agricultural Burning (2010 Report). The District determined, and ARB concurred, 

that there were no economically feasible alternatives to open burning of certain crop 

categories as outlined in the 2010 Report; this conclusion was reaffirmed in the 

2012 Update: Recommendations on Agricultural Burning (2012 Report). 

Additionally, the District currently does not allow open burning on days when 

fireplace burning is prohibited.

37. COMMENT: The plan states that there are no NOx emissions reported for Rule 

4104 (Reduction of Animal Matter), but also states that the source category uses 

thermal oxidizers. The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening the rule 

to include NOx limits for thermal oxidizers.

RESPONSE: As discussed in Appendix D, rendering facilities subject to Rule 4104 

generally use steam from a boiler (indirect-fired) or a rotary dryer (direct-fired) for 

their operations; which generate NOx emissions. These combustion units are 

regulated/controlled by other District rules and are therefore accounted for in the 

emission inventories under those source categories. See Appendix B for the 

complete emission inventory.

The purpose of Rule 4104 is to reduce emissions from rendering operations. 

Specifically, Section 5.1 states that “A person shall not operate or use any article, 

machine, equipment or other contrivance for the reduction of animal matter unless 

all gases, vapors and gas-entrained effluent from such an article, machine, 

equipment or other contrivance are: 1) Incinerated at temperatures of not less than 

1200°F for a period of not less than 0.3 seconds; or 2) Processed in such a manner 

determined by the APCO to be equally or more effective for the purpose of air 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-14 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

pollution control than Section 5.1.1 above.” Most rendering facilities use thermal 

oxiders as a pollution control device to incinerate effluent from the rendering 

process, and reduce odors and their potential nuisance impact. Although there are 

auxiliary NOx emissions from the combustion of supplementary fuel, there are only 

a few of these units in the San Joaquin Valley, and are not a significant NOx 

emissions source. Any new units would be evaluated through the District’s Best 

Available Control Technology New Source Review requirements. As discussed in 

Appendix D, District Rule 4104 is as stringent as or more stringent than other air 

districts in California, and has been deemed as RACT by EPA. However, the 

District will continue to evaluate the potential for additional emissions reductions 

from this source category during future plan development projects.

38. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 4309 

(Dryers and Dehydrators). Finding that reducing the NOx limit to 3.9 ppmv at 19% 

O2 for asphalt plants would reduce the margin of compliance for units is not a 

sufficient rationale for rejecting controls. If a lower limit is feasible, sources will 

achieve it and determine for themselves how best to ensure compliance.

RESPONSE: As stated in Appendix D, all of the asphalt plants in the Valley have 

already installed low-NOx burners or modified their units to meet the 4.3 ppmv limits 

applicable to them. As result of these alterations, these facilities meet the more 

stringent 3.9 ppmv limit discussed in the comment. Therefore, this type of 

amendment would be administrative in nature since it would not require any 

additional control equipment or changes in operating techniques or practices to 

comply and would not generate additional emission reductions from these units. 

39. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 4311 

(Flares) to strengthen the flare minimization planning requirement to cap the 

amount of produced gas that can be burned, like the Santa Barbara rule. 

RESPONSE: More specific information on the commenters perceived differences 

between the Santa Barbara and San Joaquin Valley flare rules would help the 

District to more fully consider and respond to this comment. The District did a 

thorough analysis of flare rules in other air districts in California during both this plan 

development process and the 2009 rule-amending project and determined that 

District Rule 4311 is as stringent as or more stringent than flares rules in other air 

districts. EPA concurs with this assessment as illustrated by the approval of the 

rule as a SIP revision in 2011. The District has committed to a further study of the 

flare rules to continue to evaluate potential opportunities for additional emission 

reductions from these sources (see Appendix D, and Chapters 5 and 10 for more 

details).

40. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 4352

(Solid Fuel-Fired Boilers) to explore fuel switching requirements. There is no 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-15 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

reason, economically or otherwise, that sources in the Valley should be allowed to 

burn coal. Requiring such fuel switching is a permissible control measure and is 

both technologically and economically feasible. 

RESPONSE: One former coal fired facility, DTE Stockton, has already switched to 

biomass, and the four other coal/coke fired boilers in the Valley are being fired on 

biomass part of the time. In addition, these units have installed highly effective 

emission control systems for NOx, SOx, and PM emissions. These four boilers 

even have more stringent NOx limits within their permit requirements than some of 

the biomass facilities and the municipal solid waste facility in the Valley. Source 

testing confirms that they are meeting even lower limits than those in their permits.

Thus, mandating that these four facilities eliminate the use of coal would not 

generate additional emission reductions from these units. Like DTE Stockton, 

favorable market conditions will allow facilities to adapt to biomass fuel. The District 

evaluated additional potential emission reduction opportunities, as included in 

Appendix D.

41. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 4550

(Conservation Management Plans) to ensure all sources are applying the most 

effective emission reduction techniques. The District should revisit its menus and 

eliminate options that undermine the application of superior reasonably available 

control measures. 

RESPONSE: As discussed in Appendix D, the District has adopted the most 

stringent regulatory requirements in the nation for reducing particulate matter 

emissions (primarily PM10) from agricultural sources. Agricultural operations are 

currently achieving significant emission reductions from the implementation of a 

broad set of conservation practices. While Rule 4550 has been successful in 

reducing both PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, recent studies have indicated that the 

PM2.5 fraction of emissions makes up a small portion of the total particulate 

emissions from agricultural operations. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from these 

sources make up a minor fraction of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in the peak 

winter season, the geologic nature of these particulate matter emissions are of 

relative low toxicity. Therefore, District does not recommend any additional 

regulatory requirements under Rule 4550. The District has committed to continue to 

analyze and support studies in support of establishing a more accurate inventory of 

PM2.5 emissions and identifying potential additional emission reduction 

opportunities. 

42. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 4702

(Internal Combustion Engines) to meet tighter NOx and PM limits by May 2013. 

The District should explore further emission reductions available for this source 

category, including a lower NOx limit and fewer exemptions for IC engines. 

RESPONSE: Rule 4702 was amended in August 2011 to implement more stringent 

NOx limits for non-agricultural operations engines, with compliance dates ranging 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-16 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

from 2014 through 2017. Based on this recent action and ongoing rule 

requirements, there are no additional emission reduction opportunities for nonagricultural engines at this time. Additionally, the District’s analysis of Rule 4702 

determined that lower NOx emissions limits are not currently technologically or 

economically feasible for agricultural operations engines. Refer to the control 

measure discussion for Rule 4702 in Appendix D for the complete analysis of the 

current NOx emissions limits in Rule 4702, which also includes the District’s 

evaluation of potential opportunities by amending rule exemptions.

43. COMMENT: The District is working with SCAQMD to develop new technologies 

that will make it possible for the regulated community to comply with new 

regulations for Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling). The District should implement 

controls on under-fired charbroilers now that would provide additional emission 

reductions, similar to those in BAAQMD such as controls on new under-fired 

charbroilers, and controls on existing under-fired charbroilers. 

RESPONSE: While there are promising technology demonstration efforts 

underway, time is still needed to prove the technologies in actual restaurant 

conditions and for the technologies to become commercially available. Even though 

BAAQMD Regulation 6 Rule 2 already applies to under-fired charbroilers, 

restaurants have been able to avoid control devices by staying under the 

applicability limits. In fact, the District is not aware of any restaurants that have 

been required to install controls under BAAQMD’s regulation. Given the current 

state of technology, considerable time, investment, and effort will be needed in 

order to develop viable technologies. A compliance date of 2017 would accelerate 

the development and demonstration of new technology. The District will utilize its 

Charbroiler Incentive Program (ChIP) to assist in the demonstration and 

implementation of the technologies in anticipation of the 2017 compliance date. 

Furthermore, the amendment of District Rule 4692 would go through an extensive 

public process, during which the District will address the cost effectiveness of 

installing the new technologies and the socio-economic impacts of the proposed 

regulation.

44. COMMENT: The District has committed to reviewing and amending Rule 4905 

(Natural Gas-Fired, Fan-Type, Residential Central Furnaces) in 2014, that is too 

late given the public health consequences Valley residents face as a result of the 

District’s delayed attainment of the PM2.5 standard. The District should commit to 

reviewing and amending the rule earlier than 2014. 

RESPONSE: The District committed to amend Rule 4905 in the District’s 2008 

PM2.5 Plan with a date of 2014 given the uncertainty that manufacturers will be 

able to meet the more stringent limits in the South Coast Rule 1111, the rule for 

which this commitment is based upon. In 2010, the SCAQMD released an RFP for 

the development of prototype ultra-low NOx natural gas-fired fan-type central 

furnaces; the resulting projects are currently on-going. The District will work closely 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-17 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

with the SCAQMD staff throughout the technology development project and when 

Rule 4905 is amended, the NOx emission limits will be technologically feasible and 

cost effective requirements. 

45. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 8061

(Paved and Unpaved Roads) to consider changes to the daily trip threshold and to 

evaluate tightening controls on the roads currently covered by the rule. 

RESPONSE: The District evaluated opportunities to strengthen Rule 8061 and 

determined that lowering the trip threshold is not a viable emission reduction 

opportunity. Additionally, air quality monitoring and modeling shows that the 

geologic fraction of PM2.5 found in the San Joaquin Valley makes a relatively small 

contribution to overall PM2.5 mass, and studies have shown that geologic dust, by 

itself, has relatively low toxicity. In addition, emissions from unpaved roads are

lowest in the winter when the majority of PM2.5 exceedances occur. For a more 

detailed analysis, see Appendix D.

46. COMMENT: The plan should evaluate the potential of strengthening Rule 8081

(Agricultural Sources). The District should revisit its dust control options and 

eliminate options that undermine application of superior options that are reasonably 

available. 

RESPONSE: The District evaluated opportunities to strengthen Rule 8081 and did 

not identify any viable emission reduction opportunities. Additionally, air quality 

monitoring and modeling shows that the geologic fraction of PM2.5 found in the San 

Joaquin Valley makes a relatively small contribution to overall PM2.5 mass, and 

studies have shown that geologic dust, by itself, has relatively low toxicity. This rule 

applies to off-field agricultural sources and the dust control requirements are as or 

more stringent than those in other air districts. For a more detailed analysis, see 

Appendix D. 

47. COMMENT: With regards to SC 005 (Asphalt/Concrete Operations), the District 

should investigate ways in which it can help local jurisdictions incorporate warm-mix 

asphalt technologies into their operations. 

RESPONSE: The District has committed to a 2013 further study evaluation of the 

feasibility of warm mix asphalt over hot-mix asphalt. The District must first verify 

potential emission reductions as well as cost effectiveness and technological 

feasibility of warm mix asphalt before encouraging local jurisdictions to incorporate 

the technologies into their operations. 

48. COMMENT: The current weight of evidence analysis is written to defend the 

modeling results and assumptions, but does not provide separate analyses or 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-18 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

independent evidence supporting the conclusion that the area will attain. The plan 

should provide additional evidence and analyses to test the conclusions of the 

model. 

RESPONSE: As a part of the weight-of-evidence analysis for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, 

the District conducted a speciated linear rollback analysis as discussed in Appendix 

5 of Appendix G (PM2.5 Weight of Evidence). The District’s speciated linear 

rollback analysis serves as a separate analysis with the goal of corroborating the 

results of regional model. This independent analysis arrived at similar projected 

design values in 2019 for the Fresno and Bakersfield areas, providing further 

evidence that the conclusions of the regional model are sound.

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-19 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE

OCTOBER DRAFT OF THE PM2.5 PLAN

VERBAL COMMENTS, OCTOBER 9, 2012 ARB PORTION OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP 

Approximately 16 people (non-District, non-ARB) in attendance (9 Fresno, 5 Bakersfield, 2 

Modesto)

City of Shafter (Shafter)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Kings County Department of Public Health (KCDPH)

Southern California Gas Company (SCGC)

49. COMMENT: Do other parts of the state have speciated monitors? (SCGC)

RESPONSE: Yes, there are 14 speciated monitors outside of the Valley. More 

information about California’s state and local air monitoring networks is found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aaqm/mldaqsb/amn.htm. 

50. COMMENT: Is organic carbon a good indicator for diesel exhaust? (SCGC)

RESPONSE: Elemental carbon is a better indicator for diesel exhaust than organic 

carbon. However, there are other sources that contribute to elemental carbon so it 

is not the only source. There is no indicator unique to diesel exhaust only.

51. COMMENT: Can you explain organic nitrates? Peroxyacetyl Nitrate (PAN) acts as 

a night reservoir for NOx. Can it also provide a reservoir during the day in the 

wintertime? (SCGC)

RESPONSE: Nitrates are typically gases, but they can take the form of a 

particulate under certain conditions. In the summer, these compounds are less 

important and PAN acts as a nighttime reservoir. However, the colder temperatures 

during the winter season can create a daytime reservoir as well.

52. COMMENT: Are all federal, state, and local programs that have been incorporated 

into the ARB emissions modeling identified somewhere in the plan, along with their 

emission reduction benefits? (Shafter)

RESPONSE: EPA’s March 2012 PM2.5 Implementation Guidance memo (page 3) 

recommends that states first identify emissions reductions programs that have been 

adopted and implemented at the federal, state, and local levels, and then use this 

information to evaluate the air quality improvement the programs are projected to 

provide. The context of this recommendation is for areas to consider the air quality 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-20 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

improvement from the collective strategy to determine the area’s likely attainment 

date and the amount of additional emissions reductions needed to reach attainment. 

Toward this end, the plan documents existing federal, state, and local measures in 

Appendices C and D, and in Chapter 5. Appendix B summarizes some of the major 

activities that have reduced emissions. Chapter 4 describes the design value 

progress that will result from all adopted and newly proposed measures. Additional 

information regarding adopted state and federal control measures may be found in 

the supporting staff reports and documentation for each of the respective measures.

53. COMMENT: In the March letter from EPA, they discuss greenhouse gases 

(GHGs). Will it be recognized and included in the modeling? (Shafter)

RESPONSE: This plan addresses the most recent 24-hour standard PM2.5 

standard adopted by EPA in 2006, and does not address GHGs or global warming. 

GHGs and global warming are primarily being addressed at the state and federal 

level, for example, through California’s passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006.

54. COMMENT: The organic nitrate reservoir is referred to in the modeling protocol, is 

there concrete evidence supporting it or is it measurement based? (EPA)

RESPONSE: The role Peroxyacetyl Nitrate (PAN) plays as a night reservoir is well 

established in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, as well as other air basins. For 

example, a study conducted by John Seinfeld2 on air quality in the South Coast Air 

Basin demonstrated disbenefits of VOC reductions with regard to PM2.5 formation. 

ARB collected data on organic nitrates in the Valley in June 2012 and see similar 

evidence of this phenomenon in the San Joaquin Valley data. 

55. COMMENT: What is the relative contribution of wood combustion and diesel 

mobile sources to organic carbon? (EPA)

RESPONSE: The receptor modeling conducted for this plan differentiates the 

sources of carbon, and recent data has determined the ratio of organic carbon to be 

about 50/50 between burning and mobile sources. 

56. COMMENT: The District stated that reductions in ammonia were less effective at 

reducing ammonium nitrate, especially in urban areas. Is there any plan to do 

sensitivity studies of ammonia reductions in localized urban areas? (EPA)

RESPONSE: ARB has conducted ammonia sensitivity runs, with results included in 

Chapter 4 and Appendix G (Weight of Evidence). Carrying capacity diagrams 

 

2 Meng, Z., Dabdub, D., and Seinfeld, J.H., 1997, Chemical Coupling Between Atmospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter, Science, 

277, 116-119.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-21 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

showing the effectiveness of ammonia reductions compared to other precursors 

have been added to Chapter 4. These modeling results and other studies conclude 

that reducing ammonia emissions is much less effective at reducing ammonium 

nitrate concentrations than reducing NOx or direct PM2.5 emissions. However, the 

District has committed to further study ammonia emissions at confined animal 

facilities, including potential ammonia controls and their effectiveness in reducing 

the Valley’s PM2.5 concentrations.

57. COMMENT: What are some of the primary sources of ammonium nitrate? 

(KCDPH)

RESPONSE: Ammonium nitrate is formed from emissions of NOx and ammonia. 

The primary sources of NOx are on- and off-road mobile sources, while ammonia is 

emitted from livestock operations, fertilizer applications, and mobile sources. See 

Chapter 4 for the full discussion of ammonium nitrate formation in the Valley.

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-22 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

VERBAL COMMENTS, OCTOBER 9, 2012 DISTRICT PORTION OF PUBLIC

WORKSHOP

Approximately 19 people (non-District, non-ARB) in attendance (11 Fresno, 5 Bakersfield, 

3 Modesto)

8TM, Fresno (8TM)

Aptco LLC (AC)

Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment (CRPE)

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition (CVAQ)

City of Shafter (Shafter)

Coalition for Clean Air (CCA)

Golden Valley Health Centers (GVHC)

Paramount Farms (PF)

Sherriffs, Alexander C., M.D. (Sheriffs)

Southern California Gas Company (SCGC)

Spa Doctor Spa and Stove Center (SDSSC)

58. COMMENT: How much emissions reductions are expected for Rule 9610 and will 

those reductions count towards the District’s attainment demonstration? (CCA)

RESPONSE: The emissions reductions credited under Rule 9610 will be 

determined through annual reporting. The procedure for these annual reports will 

be determined during the development of Rule 9610 in 2013. At this time, the 

District is identifying 1.9 tons per day (tpd) of NOx reductions in 2019 to serve as 

contingency reductions for this plan. These reductions were not credited as a part 

of the attainment demonstration. See Chapter 6 for the discussion for Rule 9610 

and Chapter 9 for additional information on contingency measures.

59. COMMENT: Could ammonia emissions reductions be used for contingency 

purposes? Why doesn’t the District pursue ammonia emissions reductions, since 

there is a surplus of ammonia emissions in the Valley and it is becoming more 

difficult for the Valley to achieve cost effective NOx emissions reductions? (CCA)

RESPONSE: This plan shows that sufficient reductions in NOx and PM2.5 are 

available to bring the Valley into attainment and to fulfill the contingency 

requirement. The extensive evaluation of the potential benefit of ammonia 

reductions to the Valley’s PM2.5 concentrations demonstrates that it would take an 

unreasonable magnitude of ammonia reductions to significantly reduce PM2.5 

concentrations. Additionally, there are not any feasible measures available to 

reduce ammonia emissions by this magnitude (see Chapters 4 and 5). Therefore, it 

would not be beneficial to use ammonia reductions as contingency in place of NOx 

or direct PM2.5 reductions. That said, District Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities) is the most stringent regulation in the nation for livestock operations and 

already achieves significant ammonia and VOC reductions. Furthermore, the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-23 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

District has committed to further study ammonia emissions at confined animal 

facilities, potential ammonia controls for these facilities, and the effectiveness of 

these controls in reducing the Valley’s PM2.5 concentrations (see Chapter 5).

60. COMMENT: Under Rule 9610, how will the District get SIP credit for emissions 

reductions achieved through incentive programs and ensure that Clean Air Act 

requirements for enforceability are still met? (CRPE)

RESPONSE: District incentive programs have been modeled from effective state 

incentive programs like the Carl Moyer Program. Enforceability has already been 

built into the District incentive programs through requirements that include pre and 

post-project equipment inspections, monitoring and reporting. The development of 

Rule 9610 will provide the mechanism for the District to take credit for these 

surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable emissions reductions.

61. COMMENT: If the District does not know how many people will opt into their 

incentive programs, how will you estimate a certain amount of emissions reductions 

and take credit for those reductions as a part of Rule 9610? (CRPE)

RESPONSE: The proposed plan does not take any credit for emissions reductions 

from incentives to demonstrate attainment (see response to comment 58). Final 

credit for Rule 9610 emissions reductions will be based on reporting of actual 

participation in SIP-creditable incentive programs. The details of this process under 

Rule 9610 will be established through a public rule development process in 2013. 

62. COMMENT: Are all federal, state, and local programs that have been incorporated 

into the ARB emissions modeling identified somewhere in the plan, along with their 

emission reduction benefits? (Shafter)

RESPONSE: See response to comment 52.

63. COMMENT: Page C-1 states that land use decisions are under the jurisdiction of 

the MPOs, but in actuality cities and counties have the authority. (Shafter)

RESPONSE: Appendix C has been corrected with the appropriate language.

64. COMMENT: EPA recently released new federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards. How will those new standards be accounted for in the plan? 

(SCGC)

RESPONSE: EPA’s August 2012 CAFE standards set emissions limits for carbon 

dioxide for model years 2017-2025. ARB has also adopted a new regulation 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-24 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

addressing light-duty motor vehicle efficiency known as the Advanced Clean Car 

regulation. ARB has recently found the federal regulation to be equivalent to the 

state regulation. Future reductions from implementation of these new efficiency and 

emissions standards have been accounted for in this plan.

65. COMMENT: The charbroiling source category is important for the District’s riskbased strategy and reaching attainment. How does setting a compliance date for 

2017 help to reach attainment as “expeditiously as possible”? (GVHC)

RESPONSE: Promising prototype technologies are being demonstrated through 

South Coast AQMD’s charbroiler demonstration project, which the District has been 

actively participating in. However, time is still needed to prove the technologies in 

actual restaurant conditions (whereas the South Coast project is being conducted in 

a research facility) and for the technologies to become commercially available. 

Given the current state of technology, a compliance date of 2017 will accelerate the 

development and demonstration of new technology. The District will utilize its 

Charbroiler Incentive Program (ChIP) to assist in the demonstration and 

implementation of the technologies in anticipation of the 2017 compliance date. 

Furthermore, the amendment of District Rule 4692 will go through an extensive 

public process and will be the opportunity to address specific issues such as the 

cost effectiveness of installing the new technologies and the socio-economic 

impacts of the proposed regulation. See Appendix D for additional information on 

the Rule 4692 (Commercial Charbroiling) control measure.

66. COMMENT: When will the results of the SCAQMD technology demonstration 

project for charbroiling be completed? How much money has the District invested 

in the study thus far? (GVHC)

RESPONSE: Results from South Coast’s technology demonstration project are 

expected later this year or early next year. The District has contributed $500,000 of 

funding to its own ChIP (Charbroiler Incentive Program) demonstration program 

thus far, and will use this program to seek partnering restaurants with which to 

demonstrate emissions controls at Valley operated restaurants. Additional funding 

may be contributed to the South Coast or other demonstration efforts as 

opportunities become available.

67. COMMENT: In regards to the commitment to establish emission limit(s) for underfired charbroilers, is this the first time a rule has been adopted or committed to 

without sound knowledge regarding the availability or efficiency of potential control 

technologies? (GVHC) 

RESPONSE: Similar to the Guiding Principle #2 for this plan (use sound science as 

the plan’s foundation), the District uses sound science with every rule making 

action. The District has never adopted or committed to a regulation without sound 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-25 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

knowledge regarding the availability or efficiency of potential control technologies. 

However, due to the severe nature of the Valley’s pollution problems, the District 

has adopted regulations that have been “technology-forcing”, whereby requiring 

emissions controls that are effective in controlling emissions, but have not yet been 

widely implemented for a specific source category. Examples include Rule 4306, 

where large boilers, steam generators and process heaters were required to install 

ultra-low NOx burner technologies in order to meet the emission limits established 

by the rule; or Rule 4703, where turbines have been required to install postcombustion controls such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) systems to 

achieve the NOx limits of the rule. Furthermore, the amendment of District Rule 

4692 will go through an extensive public process and will provide opportunities to 

address specific issues such as the state of new technology, cost effectiveness of 

installing new technologies, and the socio-economic impacts of the proposed 

regulation.

68. COMMENT: How much of an emission reduction benefit would the Valley gain from 

the amendment to the charbroiling rule? (Sheriffs)

RESPONSE: Amending Rule 4692 to include charbroilers will reduce about 0.1 

tons per day of directly-emitted PM2.5 in Kern County, and about 0.3 tons per day 

in other Valley counties combined for a total of 0.4 tons per day of reductions in 

directly-emitted PM2.5. Due to the location of these emissions reductions, and 

because this would reduce directly-emitted PM2.5, there would be a significant 

benefit to ambient PM2.5 concentrations as a result of this amendment: 0.6 μg/m3 

reduction in the PM2.5 concentration for Bakersfield. Not only does this help assure 

attainment in the Bakersfield area, but the PM2.5 species and location of emissions 

reduced will achieve relatively large health benefits, consistent with the District’s 

Risk-based Strategy. 

69. COMMENT: Some facilities operate thermal oxidizers year round to destroy VOCs. 

Given the potential disbenefit associated with reducing VOCs with regard to PM2.5 

formation, could removing control equipment and allowing higher VOC emissions 

during the winter serve as a potential PM2.5 control strategy? (AC)

RESPONSE: While modeling shows there is a potential disbenefit from reducing 

VOC emissions with regard to PM2.5 formation, the magnitude is relatively small 

and will not assist with attaining the federal PM2.5 standard. Furthermore, 

weakening existing regulations may have a detrimental public health impact to 

workers and Valley residents working in or living near facilities.

70. COMMENT: When the District amends Rule 4901, it should consider allowing 

residents who have invested in cleaner burning, EPA-certified wood burning devices 

to use those devices at some curtailment levels, as an incentive for investing in 

these cleaner devices. (SDSSC)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-26 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The District commits to analyze the feasibility of allowing the use of 

clean certified wood-burning devices at some curtailment levels during the next ruleamending process. Enforcing this added flexibility would be difficult given the 

challenge in distinguishing wood smoke emissions from various wood burning 

devices, and the District would explore various options during the rule development 

process for ensuring that this issue is addressed. The District values the cleaner 

burning technology that has been developed in recent years, as demonstrated by 

the implementation of the District’s Burn Cleaner Program, which was implemented 

to help Valley residents upgrade their current wood-burning devices and open 

fireplaces to natural gas or propane devices, or clean pellet devices to alleviate the 

problem of particulates. 

71. COMMENT: It would be helpful to provide a summary of the inventory, including 

the percentage of emissions reductions committed to from the state and the District, 

as part of workshops. (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: The District presented the emissions inventory for various PM2.5-

related pollutants during the workshop, and detailed emissions inventory information 

was published as part of various drafts of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan ahead of public 

workshops (see Appendix B). 

72. COMMENT: The District should consider prohibiting open air charbroiling on NoBurn days. (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: During the rule-amending project for Rule 4692, the District will 

evaluate potential opportunities for emissions reductions and consider technological 

feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and socio-economic impact. 

73. COMMENT: Social vulnerability should be considered as a part of the District’s 

Risk-based Strategy. There also seems to be a low priority for rural communities as 

a by-product of the District’s Risk-based Strategy. (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: Public health in all parts of the Valley, including rural communities, 

are important and considered in the proposed 2012 PM2.5 Plan and the District’s 

Risk-based Strategy. This vulnerability is also acknowledged in the District’s 

Environmental Justice Strategy.

74. COMMENT: The District should consider addressing the stench of mega dairies as 

they can cause serious impacts on poor and/or small communities around them. 

(CVAQ)

RESPONSE: Dairies are subject to the District’s permitting program and are 

inspected regularly to ensure compliance with District regulations. In fact, dairies 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-27 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

are subject to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), the most stringent rule of its 

kind in the nation, and are already required to implement best management 

practices to ensure emissions are minimized. 

75. COMMENT: On Slide 16, what percentage of NOx emissions is on-road versus offroad? Is ARB rulemaking factored in? If their rules get delayed, how will the District 

handle not reaching these goals? (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: The emissions inventory is presented in Appendix B of the plan. In 

2019, mobile source emissions account for about 79% of the total NOx emissions 

inventory. Of this, about 63% is on-road mobile and 37% is other mobile. ARB 

rulemaking is factored into the projected emissions, and the proposed plan (and 

other prior plans, including the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan) includes 

enforceable commitments to achieve the emissions reductions necessary for 

attainment.

76. COMMENT: Every October in the last ten years has had an exceedance of the 35 

μg/m3 PM2.5 standard. Is there any evidence that these exceedances are not at 

least partially attributable to residential wood burning? Why is October not included 

in the wood burning curtailment period of Rule 4901? Why not ban residential wood 

burning altogether? (8TM)

RESPONSE: There have been measured PM2.5 concentrations above 35 μg/m3 

in Octobers of years past. Expanding the curtailment season to include October 

would potentially increase the number of curtailment days in each wood burning 

season based on recent air quality data. However, measured Valley concentrations 

of levoglucosan, a primary indicator for wood burning, are not nearly as high in 

October as found to be in November through February (refer to Appendix D for 

further discussion). While it appears that there would be little benefit in expanding 

the woodburning season to October, the District will consider this option when the 

rule is amended under this plan. 

77. COMMENT: Can you address how you will be changing old regulations that are 

part of businesses being regulated to the point of diminishing returns and spending 

millions of dollars with minimal benefits? (PF)

RESPONSE: The District recognizes the significant cost associated with 

regulations that have been adopted to reduce emissions from stationary source 

businesses. This plan includes a thorough analysis of all sources of emissions of 

directly-emitted PM2.5 and the Valley’s significant PM2.5 precursors to identify 

whether there are any additional opportunities for reducing emissions. This analysis 

is presented in the 200+ page Appendix D, and new rule commitments are included 

in Chapter 5. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-28 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

VERBAL COMMENTS, OCTOBER 16, 2012 DISTRICT MEETING WITH CVAQ

The District, ARB, EPA, and members of CVAQ (Central Valley Air Quality Coalition) met 

to discuss the PM2.5 Plan and related issues.

78. COMMENT: The District should consider amending the Indirect Source Review 

(ISR) Rule to expand rule applicability.

RESPONSE: The District is the first air agency to adopt an indirect source rule 

regulating new development projects. The District’s rule is recognized as the 

benchmark, or best available control, for regulating indirect sources. The legal 

issues associated with adopting and implementing indirect source regulations are 

numerous and complex, as is evidenced by the fact that the District has spent over 

five years successfully defending its existing rule in state and federal court. A 

specific recommendation would assist the District to more fully consider this 

comment.

79. COMMENT: The District should consider amending the flare rule (Rule 4311). For 

example, Santa Barbara has a stronger flare rule than the San Joaquin Valley.

RESPONSE: More specific information on the commenters perceived differences 

between the Santa Barbara and San Joaquin Valley flare rules would help the 

District to more fully consider and respond to this comment. The District did a 

thorough analysis of flare rules in other air districts in California during both this plan 

development process and the 2009 rule-amending project and determined that 

District Rule 4311 is as stringent or more stringent than flares rules in other air 

districts. EPA concurs with this assessment as illustrated by the approval of the 

rule as a SIP revision in 2011. The District has committed to a further study of the 

flare rules to continue to evaluate potential opportunities for additional emission 

reductions from these sources (see Appendix D, and Chapters 5 and 10). 

80. COMMENT: District-issued variances undermine the strength of its rules.

RESPONSE: California state law establishes and requires that the District have 

three hearing boards which take petitions for, and make decisions on, variance 

requests from local District rules as well as certain specified provisions of state law. 

Such variances are only allowed in situations where compliance is beyond the 

reasonable control of the operator and where requiring immediate compliance 

would result in the practical closing of a lawful business or the arbitrary or 

unreasonable taking of property without a corresponding benefit in reducing air 

contaminants. For both short and long term variances, the District provides public 

notice of the hearing and members of the public are afforded the opportunity to 

attend the hearing and provide comments to the board before it acts on the variance 

request.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-29 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Many variances are purely administrative in nature and do not provide relief from 

emission standards contained in applicable rules and/or operating permits. For 

those variances which do provide relief from emission standards, the board must 

ensure that excess emissions will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. As a 

result, excess emissions allowed by variances are minimal and represent less than 

0.01% of the emission inventory for NOx and VOC emissions. Furthermore, prior to 

granting a variance the potential air quality impacts must be considered to ensure 

that the variance will not result in the creation of a public nuisance or the 

exceedance of an ambient air quality standard.

Aside from being required by state law, the variance process allows the District to 

develop and implement the most stringent rules and regulations knowing that if 

unique and unexpected circumstances arise, the variance process allows a 

mechanism to address these temporary situations. Without such a process, rules 

would have to be developed to address such unique and temporary circumstances 

and would not be as stringent as necessary to address attainment issues and plan 

commitments.

81. COMMENT: The District should consider adopting a public fleet rule like South 

Coast rule.

RESPONSE: ARB has adopted a Solid Waste Collection rule that, similar to South 

Coast’s rule, reduces emissions from refuse vehicle fleets. South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s fleet rule requires that solid waste collection vehicle fleets 

transition to operating entirely on alternative fuel beginning in 2011. ARB’s Solid 

Waste Collection Vehicles Rule gives fleet operators several options to meet Best 

Available Control Technology requirements for particulate emissions by the end of 

2010. One compliance option under the ARB rule is the use of alternative fuel. 

Many of the District’s SWCV fleets have already converted to alternative fuels. 

Transitioning a fleet from diesel to alternative fuel can be costly and may not be 

economically feasible (see Appendix C for a more detailed discussion). 

Additionally, the emissions benefit associated with such a transition is minimal given 

the stringent particulate matter requirements under ARB’s rule. The District will 

continue to advance the turnover of SWCVs through the use of incentive funds 

rather than adopting a fleet rule.

82. COMMENT: Has ARB’s upcoming agricultural equipment rule been accounted for in 

this PM2.5 plan?

RESPONSE: This rule is currently under development as an ozone plan control 

measure, and emissions reductions from this future strategy have not been 

accounted for in this PM2.5 plan. Any reductions in PM2.5 precursors from this rule 

would be in addition to the emissions reduction commitments included in this plan.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-30 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

WRITTEN COMMENTS, OCTOBER 9, 2012 WORKSHOP

EPA REGION IX COMMENTS:

83. COMMENT: Since the plan projects attainment by 2017 for all locations except the 

Bakersfield-California Avenue monitor, the plan should document how the projected 

attainment dates for the other monitors were determined.

RESPONSE: The projected attainment dates for various regions of the Valley were 

based on the plan’s attainment modeling. Projections of earlier attainment dates 

were based on 2019 emissions and modeled design values; 2007 emissions and 

actual design values; and emissions inventory trends between 2007 and 2019. As 

seen in Table 4-1, various regions of the Valley are projected to see concentrations 

much lower than the federal standard of 35 μg/m3in 2019. 

84. COMMENT: The plan should include an economic and technological feasibility 

analysis of all identified control measures, and the measures found to be 

economically and technologically feasible should be evaluated for RACM.

RESPONSE: The plan identifies all potential opportunities to reduce emissions with 

associated economic and technological feasibility analyses (see Appendix D). All 

potential opportunities determined to be technologically feasible and cost effective, 

and therefore “reasonable” that are also under the District’s jurisdiction are being 

recommended as control measures for this plan (see Appendix D and Chapters 5 

and 10).

85. COMMENT: The plan should document the methods used to derive the 

interpollutant trading ratios, including an explanation of why the methods are 

reasonable for contingency measures and transportation conformity, if the plan 

includes a trading mechanism for transportation conformity purposes. The methods 

should be consistent with the results of ARB’s sensitivity analyses using 

photochemical modeling.

RESPONSE: The 8:1 NOx to PM2.5 interpollutant ratio is included in the 

transportation conformity discussion in Appendix C. Discussion on the derivation of 

this trading ratio has been added to the contingency analysis in Chapter 9. The 

Weight of Evidence Analysis (see Appendix G) documents the methodology used to 

develop the relative efficacy of emission reductions from the different PM2.5 

precursors based on photochemical modeling sensitivity runs.

86. COMMENT: The plan relies on new emissions reductions in 2019 and 2020 to meet 

the contingency measure requirement for failure to attain. All reductions for 

contingency purposes should be for the same year.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-31 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The labeling of the attainment year contingencies will be reviewed for 

consistency. Since attainment would be based on air quality data collected through 

the end of 2019, all attainment year contingencies, if needed, would be triggered 

starting in 2020 (see Chapter 9).

87. COMMENT: CAA requirements for contingency measures cannot be fulfilled with 

commitments to adopt measures in the future. Therefore, the plan cannot rely on 

emission reductions from new and/or revised requirements in Rules 4692, 4901, 

and 9610 to meet the contingency requirement until the District adopts and EPA 

approves these new requirements.

RESPONSE: The District commits to adopting each of these measures before the 

year in which contingency reductions are credited in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. EPA 

should consider conditionally approaching these contingency measures, on the 

condition that the District adopts these contingency measures by the dates 

committed to in the plan.

88. COMMENT: The District should include an analysis in the plan supporting the 

specific emission reductions claimed for Rule 9610 for contingency purposes for ongoing incentive programs. This should include a discussion of the funding level 

needed to achieve the claimed emission reduction, expected sources of funding, the 

basis for assuming that sufficient funding will be available, and the likely source 

categories and calculation assumptions that could result in sufficient surplus 

reductions.

RESPONSE: Chapter 6 of the Plan includes a detailed description of the various 

funding sources available to the District, as well as different incentive programs that 

are operated by the District. These programs have reduced over 93,000 tons of 

NOx, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions since 1992. The District conservatively estimates 

that $30 million of incentive funding would be needed to achieve the 1.9 tpd of 

contingency reductions committed to under this plan. Using a combination of 

secured funding sources, including, but not limited to funding available through 

motor vehicle surcharge fees (as authorized under AB 2522, AB 923, SB 709), and 

State Carl Moyer Program funds, the District is confident that incentive reductions in 

excess of the committed contingency reduction will be achieved as needed. It is 

important to note that the majority of incentive-based emission reductions generally 

have a life of five to ten years, with some as long as 20 years. The District expects 

that continued implementation of its incentive programs over the next several years, 

including expenditure of the $184 million of incentive funds included in the District’s 

2012-13 Budget, will achieve emissions reductions well in excess of the amount 

potentially needed in the event of contingency. Primary sources of these incentivebased emissions reductions would include the replacement of heavy duty diesel 

powered engines and equipment used in various on and off-road applications. 

Incentive program implementation, including verification of emissions reductions 

and calculation assumptions, are based on state methodologies, with the Carl 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-32 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Moyer Program serving as the primary guideline for the District’s heavy duty 

equipment incentive programs.

89. COMMENT: If the District intends to use incremental reductions in 2020 from nonmobile source measures for contingency purposes, the plan should identify these 

measures and their incremental reductions. Also, the plan should document the 

portions of the 2020 inventory relied on for contingency measures.

RESPONSE: Approximately 0.1 tpd of the emissions reductions in 2020 utilized for 

contingency purposes are resultant from District regulatory measures for stationary 

and area sources. The remaining 12.2 tpd of reductions in 2020 are from mobile 

sources. See Chapter 10 for the complete discussion of the control strategies 

fostering the needed emissions reductions for contingency purposes.

90. COMMENT: The proposed contingency measures include most of the reductions 

from the new charbroiling and wood burning controls, excluding the reductions in 

Kern County that are used to demonstrate attainment. The final plan should 

document that these reductions outside of Kern County are not included in the 

modeled attainment demonstration, and are therefore truly excess.

RESPONSE: Chapter 4 has been updated to clarify that only emissions reductions 

in Kern and Kings Counties were needed to model attainment. 

91. COMMENT: The 2008 PM2.5 Plan projected SOx levels at 21 tpd in 2014 while the 

draft 2012 PM2.5 Plan projects 9 tpd in the same year. The District should include 

an explanation for this change in the SOx inventory in Appendix B.

RESPONSE: The changes to the SOx inventory for 2014 can be largely attributed 

to new stationary and area source control measures adopted by the District since 

2008. Recent amendments to rules such as Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces) 

and Rule 4306/4320 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 

5.0 MMBtu/hr) have and will continue to foster significant SOx emissions reductions 

since new compliance dates will come into effect through 2014. In addition, the 

District and ARB have thoroughly reviewed the refine point source inventory and 

growth factors for SOx to ensure the accuracy of the SOx inventory.

92. COMMENT: For Rule 4692, EPA supports the District’s plan to regulate under-fired 

charbroilers. EPA recognizes that the District allocates considerable funding to 

install and demonstrate retrofit controls at existing facilities and encourages the 

District to consider supporting the SCAQMD’s current under-fired charbroiler 

demonstration project.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-33 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The District appreciates EPA’s recognition of efforts to develop new 

technology for under-fired charbroilers. The District will continue to support this 

effort, including exploring additional opportunities to collaborate with SCAQMD.

93. COMMENT: For Rule 4901, EPA supports the District’s plans to lower the 

curtailment level. The District should consider revised wood burning device 

requirements including prohibiting the sale or installation of any uncontrolled, 

traditional fireplaces in new or existing developments, and requiring stronger 

standards for allowed wood-burning devices.

RESPONSE: During the rule amendment process, the District will consider all 

feasible options for strengthening Rule 4901. Additionally, the District commits to 

analyzing the feasibility of allowing the use of the cleanest EPA certified woodburning devices during the next rule-amending process (See Appendix D and 

Chapters 5 and 10). The District will also continue to follow the ongoing process 

regarding potential amendments to the federal New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for wood burning devices.

94. COMMENT: EPA supports the development of Rule 9610 and looks forward to 

collaborating with the District and stakeholders during the rule development process 

to ensure that reductions credited to incentive programs are real, quantifiable, 

enforceable and surplus. 

RESPONSE: The District looks forward to continuing collaboration with EPA during 

the development of Rule 9610.

95. COMMENT: ARB’s preliminary sensitivity modeling results presented at recent 

public meetings show that reductions in ammonia emissions were comparable to 

the reduction needed in 2019 at the Bakersfield-California Avenue for attainment. 

ARB and the District should analyze whether there are feasible ammonia controls 

that could deliver the comparable emission reductions.

RESPONSE: Chapter 4 has been revised to more clearly quantify the potential 

benefit of ammonia emissions reductions. As outlined in this plan, the District and 

ARB are proposing a control strategy that achieves the emissions necessary for 

attainment of the standard. The modeling sensitivity analysis conducted for this 

plan shows, reductions in ammonia emissions achieve insignificant reductions in the 

2019 PM2.5 design values. One ton of reduced ammonia emissions would reduce 

the Bakersfield-California PM2.5 design value by just 0.008 μg/m3. There are no 

feasible measures that would achieve this level of ammonia emissions reductions, 

and NOx emissions reductions are much more effective in reducing PM2.5 

concentrations (see Chapter 5). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-34 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

The Valley’s largest source of ammonia emissions are dairies, which are already 

regulated under Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities). District Rule 4570 has 

already reduced 100 tons per day of ammonia emissions in the Valley (see Chapter 

5) and the District continues to review ongoing research of ammonia controls on 

dairies and other confined animal facilities. For example, the District has reviewed 

South Coast Air Quality Management District’s potential measure of episodic 

application of sodium bisulfate (SBS) onto manure at dairies to reduce ammonia 

emissions, which, as discussed in Chapter 5, would not be cost-effective or feasible 

for the Valley, and may have detrimental unintended consequences. 

See Chapters 4 and 5 for additional discussions regarding the efficacy and 

feasibility of ammonia controls in the Valley. Despite ammonia’s relative 

insignificance as a precursor, the District has committed to further study ammonia 

emissions at confined animal facilities, potential ammonia controls for these 

facilities, and the effectiveness of these controls in reducing the Valley’s PM2.5 

concentrations (see Chapter 5).

96. COMMENT: For Rule 4702, the District should update the language that states the 

District’s limits are as stringent as SCAQMD. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 limits NOx 

from all engines to 11 ppm while the District’s limits range from 11-150 ppm.

RESPONSE: The District has clarified the language in the Rule 4702 discussion in 

Appendix D. SCAQMD Rule 1110.2 specifies a NOx limit of 11 ppmv for landfill gas 

or digester gas fired engines effective July 1, 2012, based on a provision to 

complete a technology assessment by July 2010; this limit will only be implemented 

if the result of the technology assessment confirms that 11 ppmv is achievable for 

these engines. District staff has confirmed that the technology assessment 

completion has been pushed back to 2012. Until such time that SCAQMD’s 

technology assessment confirms that it is technologically and economically feasible 

to achieve 11 ppmv, it would not be appropriate to consider this level of control (see 

Appendix D for the complete discussion).

97. COMMENT: For Rule 4702, the District’s RACM analysis should evaluate if an 11 

ppm NOx limit is feasible for all engines in Valley and whether additional emissions 

reductions are available by eliminating rule exemptions. The analysis should also 

quantify all existing engines and their contribution to the inventory.

RESPONSE: As discussed in the response to Comment 96, it has not yet been 

determined if an 11 ppmv NOx limit is feasible for non-agricultural waste gas fueled 

rich-burn engines. Additionally, the District’s analysis determined that an 11 ppmv 

NOx emissions limit is not technologically or economically feasible for agricultural 

spark-ignited engines. Refer to the control measure discussion for Rule 4702 in 

Appendix D for the complete analysis of the current NOx emissions limits in Rule 

4702, which also includes the District’s evaluation of potential opportunities by 

amending rule exemptions. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-35 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Emissions from stationary source IC engines have been reduced significantly over 

the past several decades, and will be reduced by 71% from the baseline year of 

2007, at 20.18 tons of NOx, to 5.8 tons of NOx per day in 2019. The quantification 

of the contributions to the emission inventory is summarized in the emission 

inventory table in the Rule 4702 control measure evaluation in Appendix D and 

presented in greater detail in Appendix B (Emission Inventory).

98. COMMENT: Page D-51 states, “Current Rule 4702 (requires) combustion of PUCquality natural gas, or other equivalent ultra-low sulfur fuels.” Clarify where this 

requirement is in Rule 4702.

RESPONSE: This requirement is in section 5.7 “Sulfur Oxides (SOx) Emission 

Control Requirements” of Rule 4702.

99. COMMENT: The District should clarify that while the compliance dates for 

agricultural operations engines range from 2009-2018, the compliance date for 

spark-ignited engines was 2009.

RESPONSE: In Rule 4702, the compliance dates for agricultural operations sparkignited engines were set at January 1, 2009 or if owner has an agreement to 

electrify, January 1, 2010. The control measure discussion for Rule 4702 has been 

updated in Appendix D.

100. COMMENT: For Rule 4103, explain how the District arrived at the 3,500 acre 

feasibility threshold for citrus orchard removals, and why analyzing individual burns 

is required for all nut farmers wishing to burn more than 20 acres, but not for citrus 

farmers of similar size.

RESPONSE: The District evaluated the feasibility and cost effectiveness of 

alternatives to burning in the 2010 Final Staff Report and Recommendations for 

Agricultural Burning (2010 Report). The District determined, and ARB concurred, 

that there were no economically feasible alternatives to open burning of certain crop 

categories as outlined in the 2010 Report; this conclusion was reaffirmed in the 

2012 Update: Recommendations on Agricultural Burning (2012 Report). Refer to 

Appendix D for the complete discussion regarding citrus orchard removal burning. 

101. COMMENT: SCAQMD’s September 2012 draft AQMP seeks to reduce emissions 

from start-up, shut-down and turnaround. The District should include a commitment 

in the plan to investigate start-up, shut-down, and turnaround emission reduction 

opportunities in the Valley.

RESPONSE: The SCAQMD AQMP commits to a technical assessment of potential 

opportunities for improved start-up, shut-down and turnaround procedures in 2013. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-36 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

If their research determines that there are feasible emissions reduction 

opportunities, they will commit to regulatory action(s) at some point in the future. 

SCAQMD has not yet identified any viable opportunities for improved practices for 

any specific stationary sources with regards to start-up, shut-down, and turnaround. 

The District will closely follow the progress of their technical assessment, and if 

SCAQMD identifies any potential emission reduction opportunities, the District will 

assess these opportunities to determine if they are feasible for Valley sources and 

evaluate the possibility of potential rule amendments.

102. COMMENT: The District should add specific deadlines for commitments in the plan 

to perform additional analyses, including those listed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 9.

RESPONSE: Chapters 5 and 10 of the plan have been updated with completion 

dates for the further study measures.

103. COMMENT: In the Risk-based Strategy discussion, the plan cites EPA guidance 

referring to methods local air quality plans can use to maximize health benefits and 

minimize risk inequality. The plan should discuss the methodologies that the District 

intends to use.

RESPONSE: The District’s Risk-based Strategy (RBS) approach maximizes public 

health benefits within the Valley’s efforts to attain federal standards. To qualitatively 

evaluate the potential risk reduction benefits from various sources, the plan employs 

a scientifically based five-factor exposure assessment methodology that draws on 

the latest scientific understanding about health risk from PM2.5 exposure. The five 

factors evaluated under the RBS methodology include: relevance to attainment, 

toxicity of chemical species, particle size and deposition, proximity to PM0.1, and 

population intake fraction. For additional information on the five-factor assessment 

methodology, refer to Chapter 2.

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-37 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

WRITTEN COMMENTS, OCTOBER 9, 2012 WORKSHOP

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS:

14 comment letters were received following the third public workshop on October 9, 2012. 

8TM, Fresno (8TM)

Association of Irritated Residents (AIR)

City of Shafter (Shafter)

Clean Energy (CE)

Clum, Carole A. (Clum)

Forgnone, Penny P. (Forgnone)

Hearth, Patio, and Barbeque Association Pacific (HPBAP)

Meloni, Chanda (Meloni)

Mountain Comforts (MC)

Schlenker, Andy (Schlenker)

Spa Doctor Spa and Stove Center (SDSSC) 

Treat, Erica (Treat)

Verrinder, Joel (Verrinder)

Zapien, Sarafin (Zapien)

104. COMMENT: When the District amends Rule 4901, it should consider allowing use 

of pellet stoves and/or EPA certified wood stoves at some curtailment levels to 

incentivize the use of cleaner wood burning technologies. Many homeowners have 

invested in these clean burning devices, so consideration should be given to those 

who have made this investment. (8TM, HPBAP, MC, Schlenker, SDSSC, Zapien)

RESPONSE: The District commits to analyze the feasibility of allowing the use of 

clean certified wood-burning devices at some curtailment levels during the next ruleamending process. Enforcing this added flexibility would be difficult given the 

challenge in distinguishing wood smoke emissions from various wood burning 

devices, and the District would explore various options during the rule development 

process for ensuring that this issue is addressed. The District values the cleaner 

burning technology that has been developed in recent years, as demonstrated by 

the implementation of the District’s Burn Cleaner Program, which was implemented 

to help Valley residents upgrade their current wood-burning devices and open 

fireplaces to natural gas or propane devices, or clean pellet devices to alleviate the 

problem of particulates. 

105. COMMENT: The District should not increase the number of no-burn days. 

Firewood is an inexpensive heating source and further limiting its use will create 

more of an economic burden on Valley families, especially in these current tough 

economic times. (Forgnone, MC, Meloni, Schlenker, Treat, Verrinder)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-38 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: As discussed in Chapter 4, achieving additional emissions reductions 

from residential wood combustion is critical for the Valley to reach attainment of 

EPA’s 2006 PM2.5 standard. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 2 and 

Appendix D, reducing emissions from residential wood combustion achieves 

significant health benefits. During the public rule-amendment process for Rule 

4901, the District will evaluate the economic impacts of reducing the wood burning 

curtailment level for Valley residents.

106. COMMENT: The District should extend the wood burning curtailment season to 

include March, April, and October. There have been days in all three months that 

the Valley has exceeded the 30 μg/m3 wood burning curtailment threshold and if the 

threshold is lowered to 15 or 20 μg/m3there will be even more exceedance days in 

these months. (8TM)

RESPONSE: See response to comment 76.

107. COMMENT: Is the District considering any restrictions on the sale or use of 

charcoal briquettes for barbeques? (Zapien)

RESPONSE: The District is not considering the implementation restrictions on 

residential barbeques at this time. These devices are used more frequently in the 

summer months, whereas winter emissions reductions are most critical for 

attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standard.

108. COMMENT: Since the District has to meet a yearly average PM2.5 standard of 15 

μg/m3, residential wood burning should not be allowed on any day throughout the 

year that is predicted to exceed a 15 μg/m3daily average. The District should also 

adopt a contingency measure to automatically lower the wood burning curtailment 

threshold to 12 μg/m3, or whatever more healthful standard EPA may adopt. (8TM)

RESPONSE: The 15 μg/m3 is an annual standard, not a 24-hour standard, so the 

form of this standard allows for days and quarters above 15 μg/m3. Compliance 

with this annual standard is determined by first averaging the daily values of each 

calendar quarter, then averaging those four quarters.

The residential wood-burning curtailment program targets specific episodic days 

when PM2.5 levels in the air quality are elevated, in order to curtail residential wood 

burning activity to prevent impacts to public health and exceeding the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. However, by lowering winter PM2.5 concentrations, this program 

significantly contributes to the Valley’s progress towards the annual standard. The 

District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan outlines the control strategy for attaining the annual 

standard of 15 μg/m3, with a projected attainment date of 2015.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-39 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

109. COMMENT: The District should prioritize the mitigation of emissions from sources 

based on the seasonality of emissions, location of emissions, and likelihood to 

occur on days with high PM2.5 concentrations. (Clum)

RESPONSE: These factors are all considered, as these all relate to the Valley’s 

progress towards attainment. In addition, as described in Chapter 2 of this plan, the 

District uses a five-factor exposure assessment methodology to evaluate the PM2.5 

attainment strategy under the Risk-based Strategy: relevance to attainment; toxicity 

of chemical species; particle size and deposition; proximity to PM 0.1; and 

population intake fraction.

110. COMMENT: Residential fuel combustion and managed burning needs to be 

effectively mitigated. The District should ban greenwaste burning in the Valley and 

ban woodstoves and fireplaces in all new developments. (Clum)

RESPONSE: Agricultural burning is regulated by Rule 4103, the most stringent rule 

in the nation for agricultural burning and is evaluated every five years for 

effectiveness of rule requirements (see Appendix D). Under this rule, burning is 

only allowed on days and in amounts that do not cause violations of air quality 

standards. Residents are prohibited from burning any green waste. Section 5.3 of 

Rule 4901 already limits the installation of wood burning fireplaces and heaters in 

new residential developments; these requirements eliminate the installation of wood 

burning fireplaces in urban environments, and significantly limits the installation of 

wood burning heaters in urban environments (and limits these heaters to EPAcertified devices).

111. COMMENT: Residents in the foothills and mountains trim trees and brush that 

present a fire hazard to their homes or other buildings. The District should pay local 

chipping/shredding companies to dispose of these trimmed trees and plants rather 

than allowing these materials to be burned. (Clum)

RESPONSE: The District has committed to do a further study of the feasibility and 

potential opportunities for emissions reductions of a program similar to the one 

suggested. Refer to Chapters 5 and 10 for more details of this further study 

commitment.

112. COMMENT: The District should install air pollution monitors downwind of the Harris 

Ranch feedlot and near the mega dairies in Tulare County, monitor dairy emissions, 

and devise effective mitigations to these emissions. (Clum)

RESPONSE: Through partnership with other agencies and academic institutions, 

the District continues to study the nature and source of ammonia emissions in the 

San Joaquin Valley. However, as discussed in Appendix G, Chapter 4, and 

Chapter 5, in order to expedite attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, ammonia 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-40 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

emissions would have to be reduced by an amount that is not feasible at this time. 

However, the District continues its pursuit of ammonia emission reductions, as 

evidenced by the commitment to continue to evaluate ammonia emissions at 

confined animal facilities (see Chapter 5).

113. COMMENT: The District should not assume that there will be no growth for the 

residential wood combustion category. New homes developed on five acres are 

allowed to have woodstoves, which allows for a potential increase of wood burning 

devices in rural areas, the foothills, and the mountains. (Clum)

RESPONSE: While new homes developed on five acres are allowed to have 

woodstoves, this allowance is limited by Section 5.3 of Rule 4901; also, there is a 

steady turnover of wood burning stoves in the Valley. If a Valley resident sells their 

home with a wood burning stove, the home cannot be sold unless the stove is 

removed or replaced with an EPA certified wood burning device. The turnover of 

older, higher-polluting wood burning stoves by either uninstalling or replacing the 

units with newer EPA certified devices will effectively offset the potential increase in 

emissions that could result from any new units in the rural areas of the Valley. See 

the control measure discussion for Rule 4901 in Appendix D for additional 

information regarding this source category.

114. COMMENT: EPA plans to lower the PM2.5 federal standard this year. Why isn’t 

this plan focused on mitigating emissions to achieve the new, lower PM2.5 

standard? (Clum)

RESPONSE: The proposed federal PM2.5 standards are still under review with 

EPA and a new limit has not been finalized for approval. An attainment plan for the 

new PM2.5 standard will most likely be due to EPA in late 2017 or early 2018. That 

said, emissions reduced as a result of this plan will continue to reduce emissions in 

the Valley and will contribute to attainment of the new federal PM2.5 standard.

115. COMMENT: The plan should identify each adopted federal and state regulation that 

is contributing to PM2.5 improvement in the Valley and explain the degree to which 

each regulation is improving PM2.5 levels. Chapter 5 of the plan identifies several 

ARB regulations, but does not elaborate upon the effectiveness of each state 

regulation and it does not identify any federal regulations. (Shafter)

RESPONSE: See response to comment 52.

116. COMMENT: Page C-1 states that land use decisions are under the jurisdiction of 

the eight counties and their MPOs, but the cities and eight counties have this 

authority. (Shafter)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-41 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: Appendix C has been updated with the appropriate language.

117. COMMENT: In reference to the District’s Risk-based Strategy, how is ammonium 

nitrate less harmful to public health than other forms of PM2.5? Also, are the 

ammonium nitrate levels in Kern County related to the preterm birth rate in Kern 

County? (AIR)

RESPONSE: Despite the substantial mass contribution of ammonium nitrate to 

regional PM2.5, the oral toxicity of nitrate is very low, with an LD50 (dose causing 

death for 50% of the exposed subjects) reported to be two thirds that of table salt. 

In reference to the relationship between ammonium nitrate and preterm births, 

epidemiological studies have emphasized the need to further study the links 

between pre-term birth and exposure to varying pollutants. See Chapter 2 for a 

discussion of ammonium nitrate and its potential health effects.

118. COMMENT: Does size of the particulate or the chemical makeup of the particulate 

determine the extent of the potential damage to one’s health? (AIR)

RESPONSE: The toxicity of the chemical species and particle size both play a role 

in the relative health risks of various particulates. See Chapter 2 for the full 

discussions on the toxicity of various chemical species and risks of particulates 

based on particle size and deposition.

119. COMMENT: What does ammonia in the atmosphere do from the time it is emitted to 

when it mixes with NOx? Does the ammonia from dairies in Fresno County travel to 

Kern County? What is the accepted emission rate per milk cow for ammonia? (AIR)

RESPONSE: During PM2.5 episodes, high concentrations of ammonium nitrate 

can occur over large regions, including both urban and rural areas. Ammonia is 

mostly concentrated in rural areas, particularly between Fresno and Bakersfield.

The regional ammonium nitrate component can be traced back to the emission 

sources and subsequent formation and transport processes. Gaseous precursors of 

ammonium nitrate (NOx and ammonia) are transported much more efficiently than 

directly emitted organic matter particles. Although some of the emitted NOx forms 

ammonium nitrate in urban areas, it is also transported to downwind regions where 

it reacts with ammonia to form particulate ammonium nitrate in the rural areas.

While transport does occur, the distances are still limited, with transport distances of 

50 to 60 kilometers in the central and southern Valley. Ying et.al. (2009) found for 

example that most of the PM2.5 nitrate in Bakersfield is produced from sources 

within the southern Valley.

Since the chemistry of NOx to nitric acid formation involves multiple steps and also 

depends on the availability of oxidants, only a portion of the NOx emitted ultimately 

forms ammonium nitrate. Photochemical modeling studies indicated that the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-42 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

fraction of NOx converted varied by location, with urban regions converting little 

NOx to ammonium nitrate, while in remote areas up to 70 percent NOx was 

converted. Additional information on the formation of ammonium nitrate can be 

found in Appendix G (PM2.5 Weight of Evidence Analysis) of the plan.

The current emission factor for ammonia from milk cows is 74 lbs/head-year. 

120. COMMENT: What is the relative abundance, in tons, of ammonia emissions versus 

NOx emissions in Kern County? Would reductions in ammonia emissions in Kern 

County reduce PM2.5 levels? (AIR)

RESPONSE: For Kern County, the 2012 winter average NOx emissions are 71.55 

tpd and ammonia emissions are 44.4 tpd. The District has explored the 

effectiveness of ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and has found 

ammonia to not be a significant precursor. 

121. COMMENT: Does the chart on page 4-11 of Chapter 4 indicate that all NOx 

molecules react with ammonia molecules? How many tons of ammonium nitrate 

reductions result from one ton of NOx reduction? (AIR)

RESPONSE: The chart is a simplified representation of the ammonia surplus. Not 

all NOx molecules react with ammonia molecules. Only a portion of NOx emissions 

from motor vehicles and stationary combustion sources react through 

photochemical processes during the day, or react with ozone at night, to form nitric 

acid. When ammonia emissions react with the nitric acid, ammonium nitrate is 

created. CRPAQS observational data indicates that reductions in nitrate 

concentrations of 30% to 50% were realized through a 50% reduction in NOx. See 

Chapter 4 for additional information on the formation of ammonium nitrate.

122. COMMENT: Present evidence that the current dairy rule is already reducing 

ammonia emissions by 100 tpd. (AIR)

RESPONSE: The District analyzed emissions reductions achieved through 

implementation of Rule 4570 during development of the rule. Rule 4570 reduces 

VOC and ammonia emissions through a range of manure management measures 

(in addition to silage and other measures). Since ammonia emissions on dairies 

originates from manure, measures that more quickly and effectively handle and

treat manure are effective in reducing ammonia emissions (as well as VOCs).

123. COMMENT: Reducing off-street parking and controlling curb parking will reduce 

pollution. The District should consider charging fees for off-street and curb parking 

and for the construction of parking spaces as Transportation Control Measures in 

the plan. Also, in some European countries there are rules requiring the shutting off 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-43 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

of engines at stoplights and anywhere else if the idling will be longer than 15 

seconds, this might be advisable for the Valley. (AIR)

RESPONSE: The District looks forward to receiving scientific research, analysis, 

and data to confirm the commenter’s statements that parking in a parking lot 

reduces emissions from parking on the street. Also, District staff were unable to 

confirm which European countries have laws requiring cars to be shut off. The 

commenter’s suggestions related to parking and shutting off vehicle engines are 

beyond the District’s regulatory authority, since it pertains to land use, and a 

requirement to shut off engines would likely be impossible to enforce. 

124. COMMENT: The District should consider eliminating all agricultural burning except 

for disease control in certain rice field situations, tumbleweeds on private property, 

and carefully controlled burning of small quantities of dead trees or attrition in 

orchards. Exemptions for grape and citrus removal should be totally removed. 

(AIR)

RESPONSE: As evaluated in the 2010 Final Staff Report and Recommendations 

for Agricultural Burning (2010 Report) and 2012 Update: Recommendations on 

Agricultural Burning (2012 Report), certain categories of agricultural materials do 

not have economically feasible alternatives to open burning practices. Any burning 

allowed for these categories is strictly limited and evaluated under the District’s 

Smoke Management System, which restricts burning under conditions that would 

cause a violation of air quality standards. The District reevaluates these categories 

every five years, with the next evaluation projected to occur in 2015. Refer to the 

2010 Report for additional analyses of this rule: 

http://valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2010/October/Age

nda_Item_7_Oct_21_2010.pdf.

125. COMMENT: All charbroilers should have to reduce 90% of particulate emissions or 

shut off the charbroilers on no-burn days. (AIR)

RESPONSE: During the public rule-amending process for Rule 4692, the District 

will evaluate potential opportunities for feasible and cost-effective methods for 

reducing emissions from these sources.

126. COMMENT: Discuss why the indirect source review (ISR) rule should not apply to 

facilities in the Valley that burn or compost biomass which has to travel more than 

50 miles from collection points to processing facilities in the Valley. This is a huge 

source of pollution that is not covered by any rule. There should be no exception to 

the rule for permitted sources because these sources do not consider their 

transportation related emissions in their totals. (AIR)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-44 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The Indirect Source Review (ISR) rule was developed to address 

indirect emissions from new development projects. Stationary source projects are 

exempted from ISR requirements because stationary source equipment are subject 

to District permit and in particular to the District New Source Review (Rule 2201). 

When exceeding specific thresholds identified under Rule 2201, stationary source 

equipment are required to meet Best Available Control Technology and the facility 

may be required to provide offsets. In addition, under the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA) process, emission impacts resulting from mobile sources are 

evaluated by the lead agency (such as a land use agency) when approving the 

project, and mitigation could be required to reduce mobile sources associated 

impacts.

127. COMMENT: Flares should be strictly limited and there should be a fine for 

emergency flares used on no-burn days. (AIR)

RESPONSE: Flaring activities in the Valley are regulated by District Rule 4311, 

which is one of the most stringent rules in the nation for flares. Rule 4311 has a 

strict definition of what qualifies as an emergency flaring event; any flare event that 

an operator determines is an emergency flare event must be recorded and reported 

to the District for evaluation. If the District determines that the flare event does not 

qualify as an emergency flaring event then the operator will be issued a notice of 

violation. That said, the District has committed to do a further study of flaring in the 

Valley for potential opportunities for additional emissions reductions. The proposed 

commitment for the study completion date is 2013.

128. COMMENT: At the August 2012 Governing Board meeting, it was stated that the 

COGs may need to use some “creative accounting” in their transportation proposals 

in the future. What is meant by “creative accounting” in the context of the plan? 

(AIR)

RESPONSE: This comment is presented out of context. The discussion centered 

on using the most and up-to-date methods for forecasting emissions given their 

critical role in meeting both attainment and transportation needs.

129. COMMENT: It has been stated that 55% of truck traffic is passing through the 

Valley without stopping anywhere to do business with the intent of saying truck 

pollution is significant and the District can do nothing about it. A recent study done 

by the COGs states that the vast majority of tonnage moved by trucks within the 

valley is either intraregional, or one-way to or from points in the Valley.(AIR)

RESPONSE: The referenced study from the comment is referring to tonnage of 

material transported, not mileage traveled. Regardless of miles traveled, the 

primary regulatory authority over mobile sources lies with the ARB and EPA. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-45 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

130. COMMENT: The PM2.5 Plan could greatly benefit from including a more informed 

discussion of natural gas (NG) as a transportation fuel in compressed, liquefied, and 

renewable forms. It is a missed opportunity that natural gas was absent from the 

mobile sources sections of the plan. Natural gas delivers similar compelling 

emissions benefits for mobile sources as it does for stationary sources. 

Additionally, natural gas is a cost effective strategy, every truck manufacturer is now 

in the business of natural gas vehicle (NGV) trucks due to demand, light duty NGV 

trucks are coming to the market, and the NG infrastructure is flourishing nationwide. 

(CE)

RESPONSE: The District has primarily targeted mobile sources through its 

incentive programs, and has maintained those programs as technology neutral. 

Incentive programs have included a wide array of natural gas projects including 

buses, package delivery vehicles, municipal vehicles such as refuse trucks and 

street sweepers, agricultural pumping engines, and passenger vehicles. The 

District will continue to maintain the technology neutral nature of the incentive 

programs where possible, ensuring there is opportunity for all potential solutions to 

be considered. Natural gas, as a cost effective solution, will likely have a continued 

role as an important option for emissions reductions through incentive programs.

131. COMMENT: CE supports the implementation of a refuse vehicle replacement 

program; CE recommends that natural gas refuse trucks be a key replacement of 

diesel refuse trucks and believes incentive funding would accelerate the conversion 

rate of Valley trucks to NG. (CE)

RESPONSE: See response to comment 130.

132. COMMENT: While funding is necessary to spur the growth of zero-emission 

vehicles, it is critical for the District to continue to support all promising alternative 

fuel strategies, such as natural gas, to ensure that the Valley has a diversified 

portfolio that is capable of achieving the region’s air quality goals. Battery electric 

and hydrogen fuel cell technologies have many hurdles to overcome become 

becoming practical so other strategies should be considered. (CE)

RESPONSE: The District’s Technology Advancement Program has at its core a set 

of three technology focus areas, including mobile sources. As identified in Chapter 

7, the mobile source technology focus area includes zero- or near-zero emissions 

solutions and clean alternative fuels. It is expected that natural gas will play an 

important role in the future of near-zero emissions technology development, and be 

a significant contribution to a solution to the Valley’s goods and people movement 

emissions.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-46 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE 

JUNE 2012 DRAFT PM2.5 PLAN 

VERBAL COMMENTS, JUNE 27, 2012 WORKSHOP 

Approximately 15 people (non-District, non-ARB) in attendance (13 Fresno, 2 Bakersfield, 

0 Modesto)

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association (CCGGA)

California Dairy Campaign (CDC)

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition (CVAQ)

City of Fresno (COF)

Dennis Fox (Fox)

133. COMMENT: The timeline for this PM2.5 Plan seems aggressive. The plan 

documents were posted last Friday, leaving very little time for a thorough review. 

(CCGGA, CDC)

RESPONSE: Public feedback on the 2012 PM2.5 Plan will be accepted and 

evaluated until the public hearing for adoption of the plan in December. Interested 

persons may attend and provide feedback during the District’s October public 

workshop and other meetings, and may also provide written feedback at any time 

during the development of the plan. Additionally, the District may be contacted 

directly at any time by phone at 559-230-5800, or by email at 

pmplans@valleyair.org. 

134. COMMENT: The plan should be revised to include mention of the incentives 

programs for unpaved roads and chipping efforts, as well as provide a full account 

of all the agricultural engine and pump replacements. (CCGGA)

RESPONSE: Appendix C and Appendix D have been updated as appropriate to 

incorporate information about the unpaved roads, chipping efforts, and agricultural 

engine and pump replacements.

135. COMMENT: There are some discrepancies with the United States Department of 

Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) funding values given 

in the Incentives chapter that need to be corrected. (CCGGA)

RESPONSE: The funding value discrepancies in the Incentives chapter have been 

reviewed and discussed with NRCS, and Appendix C and Appendix D have been 

updated accordingly.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-47 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

136. COMMENT: The District should provide a reference for the stated 99.9% PM2.5 

control efficiency of PTFE bags in the almond hulling control measure discussion. 

(CCGGA)

RESPONSE: Appendix D has been updated to include a reference for the 99.9% 

PM2.5 control efficiency in the almond hulling discussion. 

137. COMMENT: The District should account for the permit condition requiring almond 

and pistachio hullers to have replacement bags accounting for 10% of the total 

number of bags in the respective control measure cost effectiveness estimates. 

(CCGGA)

RESPONSE: The permit conditions have been reviewed and the extra 10% of bags 

has been included in the cost effectiveness estimates. Refer to Appendix D for the 

updated cost effectiveness analysis. 

138. COMMENT: The emissions inventory should be corrected by the next draft of the 

plan. Agricultural emissions are shown to be increasing and the opposite is true in 

the Valley, as the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Plan (FMMP) data shows. 

(CCGGA)

RESPONSE: The draft PM2.5 emission estimates has been reviewed by ARB 

staff, and has been updated to reflect the latest California Department of 

Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) data. 

139. COMMENT: In reference to the PM2.5 trends slide, what caused the spikes in 

emissions in 2007 and 2008? (COF)

RESPONSE: The San Joaquin Valley experienced extremely stagnant conditions 

in 2007 and 2008. The winters were filled with severe fog and the summers were 

much dryer and hotter than usual which concentrated and kept the PM pollution in 

the Valley. There were also extensive wildfires in 2008, further worsening the air 

quality in the Valley.

140. COMMENT: How does the District monitor or regulate emissions from off-road 

recreational vehicles? There is a motorcycle track in Taft that is concerning 

because of the resulting dust emissions. (Fox)

RESPONSE: The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has regulations in place 

for emissions from off-road recreational vehicles. ARB’s State Strategy, adopted 

in 2007 and revised in 2011, included commitments to revisit emissions standards 

for the Other Off-Road Sources category. One of the three commitments is for 

expanded emissions standards for Off-Road Recreational Vehicles, which entails 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-48 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

adopting exhaust and evaporative emission standards to reduce VOCs from offhighway motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles. However, this is only applicable to the 

emissions from the engines. ARB plans to address these commitments in 2013 or 

2014. 

In terms of the District’s role for this sort of project, this type of site would be subject 

to a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review if creating this track is a 

new use and requires approval by the city or county. This would help mitigate any 

potential emissions or other environmental hazards resultant from the track. In 

addition, if the site is equal to or greater than 20,000 square feet, the construction 

and operational aspects of the project would be subject to District Rule 9510 

(Indirect Source Review).

141. COMMENT: The District should include diagrams of background levels of PM 

emissions in the plan. (CDC)

RESPONSE: Naturally occurring background PM2.5 concentrations in the San 

Joaquin Valley cannot be monitored as a separate value from the rest of the mass, 

and therefore it would not be possible to display a trend of measured background 

concentrations over time. Scientific research continues to explore this topic, and 

any value that is proposed from such research would be theoretical. Understanding 

and identifying the background PM2.5 in the Valley will continue to be a topic of 

importance in the future.

142. COMMENT: The modeling numbers do not reflect daytime and nighttime variations, 

as well as seasonal variations, and they should reflect both. (CDC)

RESPONSE: ARB currently provides emissions inventory modeling support for the 

District. At this point, ARB does not have the capability to calculate separate 

emissions inventories to reflect daytime and nighttime variations so the annual and 

wintertime emissions inventories for each source category have been included. 

While summertime emissions have adverse health impacts, reducing these 

emissions will not accelerate attainment because PM2.5 exceedances in the Valley 

occur during winter months. Therefore, summertime inventories have not been 

included in this plan. 

143. COMMENT: On slide 16 of the ARB modeling presentation, what does ARB mean

by saying the nearest monitors have the greatest impact? Are we at risk of only 

focusing on emissions close to monitors rather than ambient emissions in the whole 

Valley? (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: Emissions near monitors have a tremendous impact on the Valley’s

control strategies because they provide a snapshot of the trends occurring 

throughout the entire Valley. This does not mean that only emissions around air 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-49 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

quality monitors will be focused on. Rather, control strategies that are regionally 

based and target emissions reductions throughout the entire Valley will continue to 

be implemented. Control strategies will also continue to be evaluated through the 

District’s Risk-based Strategy, maximizing strategies that prioritize public health. 

144. COMMENT: On slide 17 of the ARB presentation, which monitoring site is not 

expected to reach attainment by 2019? (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: The site referenced on slide 17 is the Bakersfield-California Avenue 

monitoring site.

145. COMMENT: What is the new proposed federal PM2.5 standard? How far away is 

the Valley from meeting that standard in the future? (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: EPA recently proposed a new annual PM2.5 standard of 12-13 

μg/m3. EPA accepted comments on the proposed standard until August 31, 2012. 

According to EPA data, the Valley is expected to be in compliance with the 

proposed new annual PM2.5 standard. However, the District will use due diligence 

in performing our own analysis to confirm compliance with the new standard at a 

later date. The current 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3 has not been proposed to be 

amended. 

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-50 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

WRITTEN COMMENTS, JUNE 27, 2012 WORKSHOP

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS:

146. COMMENT: The plan should identify the specific measures that are providing the 

identified baseline reductions and the emissions reductions associated with each 

measure, including compliance dates during the period that the plan covers.

RESPONSE: Measures that provide baseline reductions are summarized in 

Chapter 4 and Chapter 9 with a complete discussion in Appendix D. 

147. COMMENT: The plan should include a discussion of the population growth factors 

including information on their values, the sources from which they are derived and 

the source categories they are used to project.

RESPONSE: The discussion of population growth factors is included in Appendix 

B. 

148. COMMENT: As part of the RACM demonstration, the Plan should include a list of 

the potential measures considered by the State, District, and the SJV MPOs and 

analysis sufficient to show that all RACM, including reasonably available control 

technologies (RACT), have been adopted and are being implemented expeditiously. 

As part of this analysis, the plan should estimate the additional emission reductions 

needed to advance attainment by one year and should include a table similar to 

Table 9-1 from SJV’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan with information on the added reductions 

needed for attainment in each year beyond those already anticipated from the 

adopted control strategy. 

RESPONSE: This analysis has been incorporated into Chapter 9 of the October 

2012 draft 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

149. COMMENT: In addition to calculating the amount of additional emissions needed to 

advance attainment by a year under mainly NOx-focused controls, the Plan's air 

quality modeling should evaluate the additional emission reductions that would be 

necessary if additional reductions in VOC and ammonia emissions were considered 

as well.

RESPONSE: The modeling and related precursor sensitivity analysis conducted for 

this plan evaluates emissions of directly emitted PM2.5, NOx, SOx, ammonia, and 

VOCs. This analysis shows that directly emitted PM2.5, NOx, and SOx reductions 

contribute to improvements in PM2.5 concentrations, whereas reductions in VOC 

and ammonia were not significant for attaining the 24-hour federal PM2.5 standard. 

That said, VOC and ammonia emissions have been reduced through District 

regulations adopted under the District’s ozone plans.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-51 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

150. COMMENT: If the Plan will include provisions that rely on trading between PM2.5 

and its precursors to meet CAA requirements or if the District intends to allow 

interpollutant trading for offsets in its New Source Review (NSR) program, the Plan 

should document the methods used to derive equivalency ratios and explain why 

the methods are reasonable. The methods should be based on the photochemical 

modeling used in the attainment demonstration and should account for the 

variability of pollutant and precursor relationships across the air basin.

RESPONSE: This analysis is in progress and will be included as an appendix to 

the final draft 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

151. COMMENT: For Rule 4307, the District should consider adding PM2.5 limits to the 

rule in addition to existing SOx limits for non-PUC quality natural gas boilers (e.g., 

liquid fuel fired boilers). Also, provide a more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis 

(or citation to analysis) for technologies discussed and more detailed information to 

clarify the relative size of emission inventories associated with Rules 4307, 4308 

and 4320.

RESPONSE: The possibility of adding PM2.5 limits to the rule for liquid-fired units 

was evaluated and it was determined that the PM2.5 control technologies available 

were either technologically infeasible or not cost effective, given the small emissions 

inventory for liquid-fired units. The previously combined emissions inventory for 

Rules 4307, 4308, and 4320 have been separated into three inventories. See 

Appendix D for the full technology evaluation and the individual inventories.

152. COMMENT: For Rule 4308, provide a more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis (or 

citation to analysis) for the potential opportunities identified.

RESPONSE: The possibility of reducing the instantaneous water heaters NOx limit 

from 55 ppm to 20 ppm was evaluated. The possibility of removing the mobile 

homes and recreational vehicles exemption was also evaluated; however, it was 

determined that these units do not fall under the size category of Rule 4308 and 

thus, did not require cost effectiveness analyses. See Appendix D for the full 

evaluation of these items.

153. COMMENT: For Rule 4320, the District should consider adding PM2.5 limits to the 

rule in addition to SOx limits for liquid fuel-fired boilers.

RESPONSE: The possibility of adding PM2.5 limits to the rule for liquid-fired units 

was evaluated and it was determined that the PM2.5 control technologies available 

are either technologically infeasible or not cost effective, given the small emissions 

inventory for liquid-fired units. See Appendix D for the full technology evaluation. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-52 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

154. COMMENT: For Rule 4702, the District should consider adding PM2.5 limits to the 

rule in addition to SOx limits and analyze whether it is reasonable to require 

agricultural IC engines to comply with the same limits required of non-agricultural IC 

engines.

RESPONSE: District staff considered EPA’s recommendations, which are 

addressed in Appendix D. 

155. COMMENT: For Rule 4703, 40 CFR 60 Subpart KKKK (Standards of Performance 

for Stationary Combustion Turbines) should be referenced. Additionally, the District 

should consider adding SO2 limits at least as stringent as the Subpart KKKK 

requirements.

RESPONSE: Rule 4703 was compared to 40 CFR 60 Subpart KKKK and it has 

been added it to the list of federal rules and regulations evaluated. The current SO2 

limits in place for facilities subject to Rule 4703 are more stringent than Subpart 

KKKK’s requirements due to California Diesel Fuel SO2 limits and District permitting 

SO2 limits. See Appendix D for the full evaluation. 

156. COMMENT: For Rule 4703, the District should add a PM2.5 BACT costeffectiveness analysis to provide context for the PM2.5 RACM analysis.

RESPONSE: PM2.5 reduction technologies for turbines were researched in an 

effort to conduct a PM2.5 technology cost effectiveness analysis; however, the 

technologies evaluated have not been achieved-in-practice for turbines and are not 

technologically feasible for certain units. See Appendix D for the full technology 

evaluation.

157. COMMENT: For Rule 4703, Page D-28 references "the potential control of...fuel 

treatment sulfur removal systems to reduce SOx emissions and foster additional 

PM2.5 reductions." It appears that at least one facility in the District is equipped with 

this system. However, it is unclear whether this facility is subject to District Rule 

2201 and therefore was required to analyze PM2.5 BACT cost effectiveness. The 

District should include additional discussion of this facility to help evaluate whether 

this control is appropriate for PM2.5 RACM.

RESPONSE: Further clarification has been added in the SOx section of the 

emission reduction opportunities discussion explaining why this facility is equipped 

with a sulfur removal system. See Appendix D for the full discussion.

158. COMMENT: For Rule 4703, the District should provide more narrative regarding the 

status of its research regarding baghouses, scrubbers and electrostatic 

precipitators.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-53 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The analysis for Rule 4703 has been updated and it includes a 

complete discussion of the aforementioned control technologies. See Appendix D 

for the full discussion.

159. COMMENT: For Rule 4311, the District should review the newly submitted annual 

flare reports to update the emissions inventory and analyze EPA's additional 

recommendations (from the TSD associated with the proposed approval of Rule 

4311, at 76 FR 52623) to help reduce emissions. 

RESPONSE: The deadline of submission for the newly submitted annual flare 

reports was July 31, 2012. The District commits to evaluating the submitted reports 

for potential emission reduction opportunities, and has included a commitment to 

further study this category in the future. See Appendix D for the full discussion.

160. COMMENT: For Rule 4311, the District should consider developing separate 

refinery and non-refinery flare rules.

RESPONSE: Bifurcation of the rule for refinery and non-refinery flares was 

considered; however, since both types of flares are currently regulated by Rule 

4311 this would be an administrative change and would not foster additional 

emissions reductions. See Appendix D for the full discussion.

161. COMMENT: For Rule 4354, the District should consider lowering the existing SOx 

limits for container plants, which currently stand at 0.9 and 1.1 lbs of SOx/ton of 

glass depending on cullet content. District BACT for this category is 0.8 lbs/ton.

RESPONSE: District staff evaluated the potential opportunity to reduce the SOx 

emissions limit to 0.8 lbs/ton of glass produced and determined that this is not a 

technologically feasible option. See Appendix D for the full technology evaluation.

162. COMMENT: For Rule 4802, provide a more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis (or 

citation to analysis) of additional controls, including those required by BAAQMD 

Rule 9-1.

RESPONSE: The current sulfur emissions limit in Rule 4802 is equivalent to limits 

in other air districts. According to source tests conducted in 2010 and 2011, the 

one facility subject to Rule 4802 is already meeting the EPA BACT emissions limit 

for these units and is equipped with the best available control technology; therefore, 

amending the rule would not result in reduce emissions. See Appendix D for the full 

evaluation.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-54 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

163. COMMENT: For Rule 4103, the District should ensure that the case-by-case 

analysis of citrus orchard removals described in the June 27, 2011 letter from 

Seyed Sadredin to Deborah Jordan is being implemented.

RESPONSE: The economic analysis performed in the 2010 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning demonstrated that the chipping and 

hauling of citrus orchard removal material to biomass plants was not an 

economically feasible alternative to open burning except in the case of very large 

growers (>3,500 acres). Since July 2011, the largest citrus farms have not been 

approved to burn citrus orchard removal material. To date, no large citrus farms 

have submitted applications to burn citrus removal material. Accordingly, no burn 

permits have been issued for citrus orchard removal material for the largest citrus 

farms in the Valley. 

The District annually evaluates each crop category still allowed to bring and 

determines a cost threshold based on the economic feasibility of alternatives to 

burning. Even for those smaller farms without economically feasible alternatives 

only a small amount of citrus orchard material is actually being burned in the field. It 

is critical to note that the small amount of burning that did occur was authorized 

under the Smoke Management System on days where the amount burned would 

not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any air quality standard. 

The economic feasibility of alternatives to burning was reevaluated in May 2012 in 

the 2012 Update: Recommendations on Agricultural Burning and determined that 

there has been no significant change to the economic feasibility of chipping and 

hauling removals since the 2010 Report. The District has committed to reevaluate 

the appropriate threshold for citrus growers annually.

164. COMMENT: For Rule 4106, Page D-48 suggests chipping and burn boxes through 

grant programs may be an alternative to burning for communities subject to fire 

hazard reduction burning. Placer County Air Pollution Control District conducted 

such a pilot program and estimated significant emission reductions.

RESPONSE: District staff reviewed the literature for the Placer County APCD pilot 

program and analyzed them for feasibility in the Valley. Refer to the Rule 4106 

control measure for in the Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluation 

Appendix for this discussion. Staff have determined that there are too many

variables to between the Valley and Placer County to commit to a program at this 

time. However, there is a recommendation for further study of this potential 

opportunity to determine its feasibility for the Valley. It is again important to note 

that any prescribed or hazard reduction burning is regulated through the District’s 

Smoke Management System and only allowed on days where the amount burned 

would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any air quality standard.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-55 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

165. COMMENT: For Rule 4204, provide a more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis (or 

citation to analysis) for additional controls.

RESPONSE: Additional analysis has been included for potential emission 

reduction opportunities; however, all of the potential opportunities identified were

either technologically infeasible or not cost effective. More detailed information has 

been provided for this source category in Appendix D.

166. COMMENT: For Rule 4550, provide a more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis (or 

citation to analysis) for additional controls. Also, analyze whether it is appropriate to 

allow selection of the Conservation Tillage CMP to have greater weight and to fulfill 

the requirement for CMP selection for multiple cropland categories.

RESPONSE: As discussed in the Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy 

Evaluation Appendix, the District has adopted the most stringent regulatory 

requirements in the nation for reducing particulate matter emissions (primarily 

PM10) from agricultural sources. PM2.5 emissions from these sources make up a 

minor fraction of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations in the peak winter season, the 

geologic nature of these particulate matter emissions are of relative low toxicity. 

The District does not recommend any additional regulatory requirements under Rule 

4550.

With regard to conservation tillage, Rule 4550 does allow and encourages the use 

of conservation tillage as one of multiple menu-based conservation practices that 

achieve emissions reductions. Given the inherent potential fuel and other costbenefits associated with conservation tillage, the San Joaquin Valley has seen an 

increasing trend in agricultural operations utilizing that practice. Agricultural 

operations currently employing a broader set of conservation practices are also 

complying with the requirements of Rule 4550 and are achieving significant 

emission reductions from the implementation of those practices. The District would 

not anticipate any additional increase in the use of conservation tillage through the 

suggested approach as the selection of such practices by agricultural sources 

involve other critical factors such as economics, cultural practices, and soil type.

167. COMMENT: For Rule 4692, the District should consider adopting a requirement to 

record the date and time of cleaning and maintenance for the catalyst or other 

certified control device similar to SCAQMD Rule 1138 (d)(l)(B) to help ensure rule 

effectiveness. 

RESPONSE: The recommendations for regulatory action in the plan identify 

emission reduction commitments and not amendments for specific rule language. 

While there will be no recommendation for recordkeeping requirements in the plan, 

it is one aspect of the rule that will be evaluated during the rule-amending project, 

and implemented if deemed appropriate at that time. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-56 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

168. COMMENT: For Rule 4692, given the significant emissions from under-fired 

charbroilers, the District's PM2.5 Plan should include when the joint evaluation with 

SCAQMD on under-fired charbroilers controls is expected to be completed.

RESPONSE: The South Coast study for under-fired charbroilers is expected to be 

complete by the end of 2012. See Appendix D for more information regarding this 

study.

169. COMMENT: For Rule 4901, it is agreed that further strengthening of the District's 

existing successful wood burning device program should be considered.

RESPONSE: Comment noted. See Appendix D for the full emission reduction 

opportunities discussion and recommendations to further strengthen Rule 4901. 

170. COMMENT: For Rule 4902, rule exemptions (e.g., for LPG or liquid fuels) should be 

evaluated to determine whether they are still appropriate. 

RESPONSE: The possibility of extending the applicability of Rule 4902 to LPGfired water heaters was evaluated. However, other California air districts also 

exempt LPG-fired water heaters from their rules. Refer to Appendix D for additional 

information.

171. COMMENT: For Rule 4902, Southern California Gas Company indicates 

development of low-NOx burners may achieve < 6ppm NOx for residential water 

heating. The District should investigate this research effort and include the 

research in Chapter 7, Technology Advancement, of the PM2.5 Plan as appropriate.

RESPONSE: The District appreciates the information provided by Southern 

California Gas Company and will continue to work with them during the 

development of this low-NOx technology. Any additional information on this 

technology will be included in Chapter 7 as information is provided to the District.

172. COMMENT: For Rule 8061, provide a more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis (or 

citation to analysis) of a lower trip threshold.

RESPONSE: This potential opportunity was evaluated and it was determined that 

lowering the threshold would not generate additional emissions reductions. The full 

analysis is included in Appendix D.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-57 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

173. COMMENT: For SC 005, the District should evaluate whether warm mix asphalt is 

technically and economically feasible and appropriate for RACM. The review 

should include the potential of using warm mix asphalt on public and private 

roads/lands.

RESPONSE: Warm-mix asphalt was researched and it was found that while 

Caltrans uses warm-mix asphalt technologies for certain projects, use by local 

jurisdictions has not been well-received. See Appendix D for the full technology 

evaluation.

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-58 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Three comment letters were received during the public comment period following the 

second public workshop on June 27, 2012. 

Dairy Cares (DC)

Kenneth Cannon (Cannon)

Ag Coalition3 (AC)

174. COMMENT: The average daily ammonia emissions for the Farming Operations 

category as presented in “Appendix B: Draft Emissions Inventory” of the draft plan 

are not consistent with cited studies. DC’s concern is that the dairy ammonia 

emissions are overestimated during the winter high-PM2.5 season. The District 

should share the dairy-specific ammonia emission inventory including both annual 

average and winter average day inventories and relevant diurnal/seasonal/monthly 

source profiles used in developing the inventory and used in attainment modeling. 

(DC)

RESPONSE: The updated draft inventory has incorporated controls from Rule 

4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) and shows a decrease in ammonia emissions due 

to the implementation of Rule 4570. The District will continue to evaluate the latest 

research to further understand the seasonal and diurnal factors for ammonia 

emissions from agricultural operations. 

175. COMMENT: The emissions reductions achieved through the replacement and 

control of engines used for irrigation pumping purposes, tractors, forklifts, 

harvesters and trucks through District incentive programs should be quantified and 

accounted for accurately in this plan. The discussion surrounding the development 

of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA, USDA, State and local 

Air Pollution Control Districts, including CARB and the SJVAPCD, must be 

highlighted. This MOU would provide a formal mechanism by which to quantify and 

account for these types of real emission reductions. (AC)

RESPONSE: The District concurs and appreciates the highlighting of this 

significant agreement. A Statement of Principles was developed in 2010 that 

established a general framework for ensuring that reductions in air emissions 

 

3 The following groups are represented in the Ag Coalition (AC) comment letter: African American Farmers Association 

of California, Air Coalition Team, Allied Grape Growers, California Blueberry Association, California Citrus Mutual, 

California Cotton Ginners Association, California Cotton Growers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Kings County Farm Bureau, Kern County Farm 

Bureau, Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced County Farm Bureau, Milk Producers Council of California, National 

Hmong American Farmers, Nisei Farmers League, Olive Growers Council, Raisin Bargaining Association, San Joaquin 

Farm Bureau Federation, San Joaquin Valley Association of Certified Air Permitting Professionals, Stanislaus County 

Farm Bureau, Tulare County Farm Bureau, Tulare Lake Drainage District, Tulare Lake Resource Conservation District, 

Tulare Lake Water Basin Storage District, Western Agricultural Processors Association, and Western Growers 

Association. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-59 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

resulting from voluntary incentives to replace off-road agricultural equipment 

received credit in the SIP. The MOU states that the District, NRCS, ARB and EPA 

will work collaboratively to develop a mechanism to provide SIP credit for emissions 

from incentive programs that are surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent. 

Additionally, in July 2012, EPA and USDA agreed to specifically implement this 

concept to ensure that emissions reductions from incentive programs were given 

their proper credit in the SIP context. As explained in Chapter 6, the District will be 

seeking to adopt a rule that establishes the framework for this to occur.

176. COMMENT: The significant emission reductions created by the implementation of 

the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality 

Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Innovation Grant Program (CIGb) 

should be quantified. The current information does not provide enough details and 

does not capture all of the emission reduction projects being funded by NRCS. 

(AC)

RESPONSE: The District has worked with NRCS to identify a fuller breadth of their 

programs, and has incorporated that information into the Mobile Source Control 

Strategies Appendix and the introduction to Combustion Devices in the Stationary 

and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluation Appendix. Refer to those appendices 

for more details. As described in the preceding comment, the District recognizes 

the importance of quantifying and providing credit for emissions reductions achieved 

under the NRCS and District incentive programs.

177. COMMENT: The agricultural industry remains seriously concerned with the 

purported increase in directly emitted PM2.5 emissions as set forth on page B-6. As 

stated previously, and acknowledged by both the Air District and the ARB, this is in 

direct conflict with a previously accepted annual acreage reduction in the San 

Joaquin Valley of 0.30 percent. (AC)

RESPONSE: The emission inventory has been updated. Refer to the response to 

Comment 138.

178. COMMENT: The District should provide a reference for the estimated 99.9% 

efficiency for the PTFE bags, in Section D.7.6 Almond Hulling and Shelling 

Operations, as well as D.7.7 Pistachio Hulling/Shelling Operations. (AC)

RESPONSE: The reference has been added to Appendix D. Refer to the response 

to Comment 136.

179. COMMENT: Current District policy requires that sources maintain an extra 10% bag 

supply on hand for hulling and shelling operations. Therefore, the District must 

increase its estimated bag cost for the cost analysis by 10%. (AC)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-60 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: The referenced permit condition has been taken into account and the 

cost effectiveness has been updated. Refer to the response to Comment 137.

180. COMMENT: Eliminating leaf blowers, gas lawn mowers, and drive through fast food 

restaurants and banks would help Valley air pollution problems. (Cannon)

RESPONSE: Options to address emissions from lawn care equipment have been 

evaluated. Refer to Appendix D for more details about this evaluation. Also, the 

District’s Healthy Air Living program provides information on what Valley residents 

can do to help clean up the air, including avoiding idling at fast food restaurants and 

banks. 

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-61 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE

APRIL DRAFT PM2.5 PLAN 

VERBAL COMMENTS, APRIL 30, 2012 WORKSHOP 

Approximately 18 people (non-District, non-ARB) in attendance (9 Fresno, 7 Bakersfield, 2 

Modesto)

BGC Environmental Brokerage Services (BGC)

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association (CCGGA)

Central Valley Air Quality Coalition (CVAQ)

Coalition for Clean Air (CCA)

Shipp, Evan (Shipp)

Evolution Markets, Inc. (EM)

Fresno Metro Ministry (FMM)

Southern California Gas Company (SCGC)

Krazan and Associates (KA)

181. COMMENT: Will the PM2.5 plan address the offset ratio for inter-pollutant trading 

using SOx emission reduction credits (ERCs) to offset PM2.5 and if so, will the 

proposed ratio be different than 40:1 ratio set by EPA? (EM)

RESPONSE: The District and ARB are in the process of conducting the modeling 

and other analysis necessary to document appropriate interpollutant trading ratios 

for the Valley for both NOx to PM2.5 and SOx to PM2.5. These ratios would 

replace EPA defaults for the Valley. This analysis will be available in future plan 

drafts.

182. COMMENT: Are any reductions to existing inter-pollutant ERC holdings anticipated 

to meet objectives of the PM2.5 plan? Is there a timeline proposed for labeling 

PM10 ERCs in the ERC registry as PM2.5 vs. PM10? (BGC)

RESPONSE: ERCs will be addressed in future plan drafts. At this time, the District 

does not expect to retire any existing ERC holdings as a part of the attainment 

planning effort. The District does not plan to identify the percentage of PM10 ERCs 

that are PM2.5. For purposes of the plan, we intend to conservatively consider all 

PM10 ERCs to be PM2.5. 

183. COMMENT: PM2.5 trends over the last five years appear to be flat. The weight of 

evidence analysis should include an examination of trends among more recent 

years, including meteorologically-adjusted trends and species trends. (Shipp)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-62 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

RESPONSE: Appendix A includes an extensive discussion of PM2.5 trends since 

1999, when PM2.5 monitoring began. This analysis considers both long term 

trends as well as more recent patterns. This analysis will be expanded in future 

drafts. This will include meteorologically adjusted PM2.5 trends and speciated 

trends that are currently being evaluated by the District and ARB. 

184. COMMENT: Do the PM2.5 species pie charts on slides 16-17 represent one day

with a high PM2.5 concentration? If so, which day? (FMM)

RESPONSE: The PM2.5 species pie charts represent an average among days in 

Fresno and Bakersfield with high PM2.5 concentrations. They are not tied to any 

particular day.

185. COMMENT: Ammonium nitrate trends for Bakersfield and Fresno were presented. 

What is the difference between Bakersfield and Fresno in regards to NOx and 

ammonia emissions? (FMM)

RESPONSE: A monitor can be impacted by emissions from outside its county, and 

down-wind missions in its county may not affect the monitor at all. As such, rather 

than focus on county emissions, the District’s receptor modeling (also known as 

linear rollback) will evaluate emissions that occur in an area of influence near that 

monitor. This analysis (to be included in a future draft) will corroborate 

photochemical modeling to determine the contribution of ammonium nitrate in future 

years as well as the magnitude and types of emissions that are driving that 

contribution.

186. COMMENT: In regards to the rule effectiveness evidence presented for the Rule 

4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters), what was the 

contribution from agricultural burning and how can you tell if emissions are coming 

from fireplaces versus agricultural open burning? (FMM)

RESPONSE: Since agricultural burning is minimal during the winter in the San 

Joaquin Valley, the improvement in PM2.5 concentrations shown through the Rule 

4901 effectiveness analysis is mostly attributable to residential wood-burning.

187. COMMENT: Will the 1-hour ozone plan be prepared concurrently? What is the 

timeline for the 1-hour ozone plan? (CCA) 

RESPONSE: The 1-hour ozone plan will not be prepared concurrently with the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan. There is currently not a timeline for a 1-hour ozone plan. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-63 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

188. COMMENT: Please describe why July 4 - 5, 2007 would be considered an 

exceptional event, as described on page A-9. (CCA)

RESPONSE: Federal regulations (40 CFR 50.14(b)(2) indicates that fireworks 

disploys qualify as an “exceptional event” and, with EPA concurrence of local or 

state documentation, are not used in design value calculations.

189. COMMENT: How will incentive programs be utilized as control strategies, as stated 

on Slide 44? (CCA)

RESPONSE: As noted in the Chapter 5 summary, incentive programs are an 

integral part of the emission reduction efforts of the District. The District is 

thoroughly evaluating potential control measure opportunities for technological 

feasibility, reasonably available control technology, cost effectiveness, relevance to 

attainment, and opportunities for improved public health. Based on this analysis, 

the District will determine which type of strategy, if any, is most appropriate for each 

control measure opportunity. These control strategies options will include 

regulations, incentive programs, and other approaches. 

190. COMMENT: Does the emissions inventory for farming operations include the latest 

information from recent research studies? This includes the cotton gin study, the 

almond study, and the new emission factors that resulted from the MRI study for the 

off road dust. (CCGGA)

RESPONSE: The draft emissions inventory is based on information that was 

available to ARB staff as of December 2011. It does not yet include the results of 

the cotton gin or the almond studies. ARB plans to include the revised almond 

emission factors in the final inventory. The cotton gin study is not yet completed. 

The District recognizes the value of these and other related studies, and will work to 

ensure that they are used as appropriate to enhance the emission inventory.

The unpaved road dust emission estimates reflect an emission factor derived from 

recent Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) studies, which include the MRI 

study cited by the commenter. ARB uses a 10% PM2.5/PM10 size fraction, which 

is the same fraction used in the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 emission factor equation for 

unpaved roads.

191. COMMENT: Are reductions from incentive programs included in the inventory for 

farming equipment? (CCGGA) 

RESPONSE: The farm equipment inventory is based on ARB’s OFFROAD2007 

model, and it does not include reductions from incentive programs. ARB is working 

with a group of agricultural stakeholders and District staff to determine how best to 

reflect incentive programs in the SIP.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-64 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

192. COMMENT: The inventory for farming operations listed on page B-5 states that 

directly emitted emissions are increasing, which seems to be contrary to other 

sources of information and should be reviewed. (CCGGA)

RESPONSE: The draft PM2.5 emission estimates presented for the April public 

workshop for farming operations were based on projections derived from harvested 

crop acreage for the years 1999 to 2010, as reported by the county agricultural 

commissioners to the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.

District staff has worked with ARB to review the data from both sources and has 

come to the agreement that the data from the FMMP is more accurate and 

appropriate for the Valley. As such, the emission inventory will be updated as 

appropriate

193. COMMENT: Our company has developed an apparatus that could reduce 

emissions from open hearth fireplaces. As previously discussed with the District 

Staff, the project does not fit within the categories needed to qualify for funding 

under the Technology Advancement Program (TAP). We ask that you expand the 

TAP categories to include retrofits of fireplaces so that our device fits into your rule. 

(KA)

RESPONSE: District Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning 

Heaters) does not require or prohibit specific technologies be installed, only that 

those technologies meet EPA certification requirements. The District will consider 

revising its TAP categories to include fireplace retrofits. 

194. COMMENT: Clarify the use of long-term trends versus short term trends. (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: Meteorology fluctuates from year to year, and this can cause -to-year 

variation in PM2.5 concentrations due to meteorology. Longer trends can smooth 

out these fluctuations and provide a better perspective on the overall progress. 

Trends relating to the “cleanest winter on record,” for example, are long-term trends 

based on all available data. Shorter term trends can help you understand the 

impacts of recent weather patterns or recent emissions reductions efforts. 

195. COMMENT: What are the key components in the formation of nitric acid? (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with OH in the atmosphere to form 

nitric acid (HNO3). This requires the formation of OH radicals from hydrocarbon 

gases by interaction with NO in photochemical action during the day.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-65 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

Nitric acid can also form when nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with the nitrate radical 

(NO3) in the presence of atmospheric water (H2O). This happens at night when 

NO2 reacts with ozone (which was formed during the day for surface level ozone) to 

form the NO3 radical.

Both pathways involve photochemical action. The night reaction is not as obviously 

from photochemistry, but if the ozone (near the surface) was not formed in the day 

by photochemistry, it would not be available at night for the alternative nitric acid 

formation pathway.

196. COMMENT: When will VOCs and ammonia be added to the inventory? (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: VOCs and ammonia inventories will be included in the next draft 

plan.

197. COMMENT: Distribution centers have zero idling rules imposed on them. Can 

incentive funding be used for electrification at distribution centers under the ARB 

Idling Rule? These operations should be viewed as stationary sources and not 

mobile sources. (CVAQ)

RESPONSE: The District reminded the commenter that ARB has already adopted 

an anti-idling regulation that already prohibits idling from trucks, including at 

distribution centers (California Health and Safety Code Section 2485). Prior to this 

regulation, the District funded a number of projects providing idling alternatives. 

However, since idling is now prohibited, such reductions would not be surplus and 

incentives are not available. The District also informed the commenter of 

restrictions on the District’s authority to regulate interstate commerce and mobile 

sources. 

198. COMMENT: What PM2.5 AQI scale was used in the AQI analysis within Appendix 

A? Was it a District defined scale, or the official scale from EPA? (CVAQ) 

RESPONSE: The current and official EPA PM2.5 AQI scale was used in the AQI 

analysis within Appendix A.

199. COMMENT: What is the difference in the annual versus winter time emissions 

inventory? (SCGC)

RESPONSE: The annual emissions inventory represents the average daily 

emissions for the entire calendar year. The winter emissions inventory represents 

the average daily emissions for November through April.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-66 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

200. COMMENT: What is the commending procedure for this plan? Are there 45-day 

comment periods, or 30-day? (SCGC)

RESPONSE: Comments received by 5:00 PM on May 14, 2012 will be presented 

in the next draft of the plan as appropriate. Comments received after this time will 

be presented in later drafts of the plan. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide 

comments whenever possible for evaluation and incorporation into the plan as 

appropriate. 

The District generally provides a two week comment period after public workshops 

for stakeholders to submit comments that will be incorporated into the next draft of a 

staff report or plan document. However, there is no governing body or regulation 

that requires this timeline. 

The 30-day period is a public noticing requirement pursuant to California Health and 

Safety Code Section 40725. This is not a public commenting requirement, rather it 

is a requirement that a notice of the time and place of a public hearing to adopt, 

amend, or repeal any rule or regulation shall be given not less than 30 days prior to 

thereto. Subpart (c) of this section of the health and safety code requires that the 

notice invite written public comment, but does not require a specific comment time 

period.

The 45-day period is a public noticing requirement for the Air Resources Board 

(ARB), not the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The 45-day public 

noticing requirement is related to public hearings at ARB for the adoption, 

amendment, or repeal of a regulation. For more information about this refer to the 

California Government Code 11346.4. 

201. COMMENT: The District should consider having technical workgroup meetings with 

the District in addition to the scheduled public workshops. There are concerns that 

the timeline for this plan does not allow sufficient time for public involvement. 

(SCGC)

RESPONSE: The District welcomes public participation, including technical input, 

throughout this public process and encourages stakeholders to submit information 

to us for consideration and review while drafting this plan. The District has been 

actively involved in a modeling technical workgroup that includes technical staff 

from ARB and EPA, and researchers with expertise in PM2.5. The District and ARB 

hosted a public technical symposium on April 27th that included panel presentations 

on a range of technical issues relevant to development of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. In 

addition to the April workshop, the District anticipates holding additional workshops 

in June and August. The plan would be considered by the Governing Board at a 

public hearing October 2012 after multiple opportunities for public input.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-67 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

202. COMMENT: What is the Clean Air Vision document, and when will it be available to 

the public? (SCGC)

RESPONSE: The Vision for Clean Air: 2012 to 2050 is an interagency policy 

collaboration will outlining a common ARB, South Coast, and Valley vision for 

strategies to meet federal air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5, the State’s 

greenhouse gas goals, and reduced public exposure to toxics (such as diesel 

particulates). Meeting these long-term goals will depend on introduction and 

deployment of transformative measures and emerging technologies, including zeroemissions goods movement. Thus, the Vision document will evaluate potential 

policies, legislation, infrastructure, and efficiencies that might provide the 

groundwork for ensuring that South Coast, the Valley, and California as a whole are 

prepared to meet the demands of long-term goals. This is to be the starting point for 

identifying actions that need to begin in the short-term. These actions can also 

contribute to the more near-term air quality needs – including the 2012 PM2.5 Plan

– as well. ARB anticipates taking this document to their Board in June 2012. The 

document will be posted for public review before this meeting. 

This area intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-68 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

WRITTEN COMMENTS, APRIL 30, 2012 WORKSHOP

One comment letter was received during the public comment period following the first 

public workshop on April 30, 2012. This comment letter was submitted by the following 

stakeholders, and for purposes of this plan will be referred to as the “Ag Coalition” (AC)4. 

203. COMMENT: The agricultural industry has made huge strides in the past few years 

in reducing emissions of NOx and PM2.5 through the replacement and control of 

engines used for irrigation pumping, tractors, forklifts, harvesters and trucks. These 

emissions must be quantified and accounted for in this plan. There is currently an 

effort to formalize this concept in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) and would provide a formal mechanism by which to quantify and account for 

these emission reductions. The emissions inventory should also be updated with 

the emission reductions resulting from the implementation of the USDA NRCS 

Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and Conservation Innovation 

Grant Program (CIGb). (AC)

RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Comment 191.

204. COMMENT: The District’s draft emissions inventory shows an increase in directly 

emitted PM2.5 emissions from farming operations which utilizes data derived from 

County Ag Commissioners reports that are based upon “harvested” acreage. This 

is in direct conflict with a previously accepted annual acreage reduction from the 

California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 

(FMMP). The FMMP data is based on actual planted acreage which more 

accurately reflects true agricultural land use for emissions inventory planning 

purposes. We urge the District to work with the Air Resources Board to rectify the 

emissions inventory for agricultural sources, and demonstrate the actual reduction 

in agricultural land. (AC)

RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Comment 192.

205. COMMENT: Significant research on PM2.5 emissions from agricultural sources 

should be incorporated wherever and whenever possible. This includes research 

that has been conducted on cotton gin emissions under the USDA Agricultural 

Research Service’s (ARS) multi-year study known as “Characterization of Cotton 

Gin Particulate Matter Emissions.” While the sampling phase is over, data analysis 

 

4 The following groups are represented in the AC comment letter: Air Coalition Team, Allied Grape Growers, California 

African American Farmers Association, California Blueberry Association, California Citrus Mutual, California Cotton 

Ginners Association, California Cotton Growers Association, California Grape and Tree Fruit League, California Farm 

Bureau Federation, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Kings County Farm Bureau, Madera County Farm Bureau, Merced 

County Farm Bureau, Milk Producers Council of California, Nisei Farmers League, San Joaquin Farm Bureau 

Federation, Stanislaus County Farm Bureau, Tulare County Farm Bureau, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 

Tulare Lake Drainage District, Tulare Lake Resource Conservation District, and Western Agricultural Processors 

Association.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-69 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

is also nearing completion and preliminary data is forthcoming, which indicate that 

PM2.5 emissions from a cotton gin would be insignificant. Furthermore, there has 

been significant work in almond harvesting operations which report PM2.5 

emissions to be an insignificant portion of total suspended particulate (TSP) 

emissions. (AC)

RESPONSE: Please refer to the response to Comment 190. 

206. COMMENT: For purposes of focusing emissions on sources that operate during 

the “winter time” (November through April), the current characterization can be 

misleading and causes sources to be regulated that may not impact the current 

exceedances of the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. The SIP should clearly 

identify the actual seasonal variances since seasonal, episodic, regional measures

and incentive funding can strategically target limited resources for optimum air 

quality benefits throughout the Valley. (AC)

RESPONSE: Through the Risk-based Strategy, the District places an emphasis on 

winter time emissions in the emission reduction efforts presented in this plan 

because they are most impactful on achieving attainment of the federal air quality 

standards. However, the Risk-based Strategy has additional components to 

consider (such as toxicity of pollutants) and therefore the District is seeking to 

reduce all emissions in the Valley as expeditiously as practicable to benefit the 

health of its residents. Please refer to chapter two of the plan for a more detailed 

discussion about the Risk-based Strategy. 

207. COMMENT: There is one technical error that needs to be corrected in the 3rd

paragraph on page C-22 where the District indicates that new tractor equipment can 

be up to 25% of the existing tractor’s horsepower to be eligible. That should be up 

to “125%”. (AC)

RESPONSE: The technical error will be corrected in the next draft of the plan. 

208. COMMENT: The District should expand the discussion regarding the contribution 

of PM 2.5 from gross polluting vehicles and direct resources towards gross polluting 

on-road vehicles, and towards enforcement ensuring that all vehicles are registered 

in the District. After all, vehicle registration fees are a major source of incentive 

funding for the Valley Air Basin. (AC)

RESPONSE: The District intends to expand discussions regarding mobile sources 

throughout the public process of the development of this plan. Refer to Appendix C 

for more details and updated language throughout the process. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 20, 2012

I-70 Appendix I: Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

2012 PM2.5 Plan 

WRITTEN COMMENTS, AFTER APRIL 30, 2012 WORKSHOP DEADLINE

One public comment letter was submitted to the District after the public comment period 

concluded. 

Southern California Gas Company (SCGC)

209. COMMENT: California’s innovative and robust energy-efficiency programs have 

resulted in a 24% reduction of natural gas use per customer since 1990. We would 

like to work with the District and CARB to ensure the PM2.5 Plan accurately reflects 

the energy-efficiency savings and the proper natural-gas usage forecasts. (SCGC)

RESPONSE: Chapter 7 of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan will be the chapter that discusses 

the energy efficiency strategies generally as potential policy initiatives and 

innovative opportunities. In any future work to refine innovative strategies regarding 

usage forecasts, the District will work with stakeholders to determine the most 

accurate and reliable usage forecasts. The District looks forward to receiving 

submittal of data to assist us with this process. 

210. COMMENT: We would like to discuss the advances and potentials for natural-gas 

technology, especially for natural-gas vehicles, to ensure that the natural-gas 

vehicle-penetration rates and associated emissions benefits are accurately reflected 

in the PM2.5 Plan. (SCGC)

RESPONSE: The District appreciates and looks forward for the opportunity to 

discuss advances and potential in natural gas technology. Incentive strategies and 

technology advancement are important components to the District’s attainment 

strategy. The 2012 PM2.5 Plan addresses mobile sources in Appendix C. Refer to 

that appendix current for discussions regarding advances for mobile sources.