Technical Support Document
 

for the
 

Proposed Action
 

on the
 

San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan
 

and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the
 

Revised 2007 State Strategy
 

Air Division 

U.S. EPA Region 9 

November 8, 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For information on this technical support document, please contact:
 

Frances Wicher
 

Office of Air Planning (AIR-2)
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

(415) 972-3957
 

wicher.frances@epa.gov
 

San Francisco, California 94105
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents
 

I. Introduction and Background 1
 

A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Fine Particulate (PM2.5) 1
 

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

a. Level and Form of the Standard 1
 

b. Health Effects 1
 

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

2. Implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS 2
 

a. Designations 2
 

b. PM2.5 Planning Requirements 3
 

B. PM2.5 Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley 6
 

1. PM2.5Levels in the SJV 6
 

2. Seasonality and Chemical Composition of PM2.5 in the SJV 8
 

C. California’s Submittals Constituting the SJV PM2.5 State Implementation Plan 10
 

D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP Submittals 12
 

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 12
 

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals 12
 

E. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 14
 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 14
 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 14
 

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 15
 

4. Proposed Action on the MVEBs 15
 

II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 18
 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy 18
 

A. Emissions Inventories 18
 

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 18
 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 19
 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 20
 

B. Air Quality Modeling 23
 

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 23
 

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 23
 

a. Conceptual Description 24
 

b. Modeling Protocol 26
 

c. Air Quality Model Selection 28
 

i
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. Episode Selection 29
 

e. Domain, Domain Size, and Spatial Resolution 29
 

f. Initial and Boundary Conditions 31
 

g. Meteorological Model 32
 

h. Meteorological Model Performance 35
 

i. Emissions Inventory 36
 

j. Air Quality Model Performance 37
 

k. Modeled Attainment Test 40
 

l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 42
 

m. Weight of Evidence 43
 

3. Conclusions 45
 

C. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 47
 

1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5 Precursors 47
 

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

EPA’s Evaluation 48
 

3. Conclusions 59
 

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control Technology 61
 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 61
 

2. RACM/RACT Analysis in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 62
 

a. District RACM/RACT Analysis 63
 

b. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 64
 

c. State’s RACM Analysis 66
 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 67
 

E. Attainment Date Extension 70
 

1. Requirements for Attainment Date Extensions 70
 

2. Proposed Attainment Date in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 70
 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 72
 

F. Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments 74
 

1. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments 74
 

2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy 75
 

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 75
 

b. CARB Measures and Commitments 85
 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 90
 

a. Baseline Measures 90
 

b. Enforceable Commitments 95
 

G. Attainment Demonstrations 99
 

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations 99
 

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 99
 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 101 

H. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 103 

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 103 

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 104 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 107 

I. Mid-Course Review 111 

1. Requirements for a Midcourse Review 111 

2. MCR Requirement in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 111 

3. Conclusions 111 

J. Contingency Measures 112 

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 112 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 113 

a. New Commitment 113 

b. Surplus Reductions from Adopted Measures 113 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 115 

a. New Commitment 115 

b. Surplus Reductions from Adopted Measures 115 

c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules 117 

K. Interpollutant Trading among Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 120 

Appendix A – CARB Rules and Measures 0 

A. Complete List of State Measures 1 

B. State Rules that Do Not Address direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors in the 

San Joaquin Valley 19 

C. State Fuel Measures 25 

D. State On-Road Mobile Sources Measures 28 

E. State Consumer Product Measures 38 

F. State Vapor Recovery Measures 40 

G. Other State Measures 42 

Appendix B – SJVAPCD Rules 0 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acronyms & Terms 

μ: micron (one millionth) 

AERR: Air Emissions Report Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A 

ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB) 

APCD: air pollution control district 

AQMD: air quality management district 

BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repair 

CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB) 

CCAQS: Central California Air Quality Study 

CCR: California Code of Regulations 

CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inventory System 

CEIDARS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System 

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

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds 

CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality [model] 

CMB: chemical mass balance 

CO: carbon monoxide 

CPM: condensable particulate matter 

CRPAQS: California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study 

District: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Agency 

DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation 

EC: elemental carbon 

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration 

Fine particulate: PM2.5 

FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program 

FR: Federal Register 

FRM: Federal Reference Method 

FTA: Federal Transit Administration 

HNO3: nitric acid 

I/C: internal combustion 

IMS95: 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study (in the San Joaquin Valley) 

mb: millibars 

MCR: mid-course review 

MFB: mean fractional bias 

MFE: mean fractional error 

MM5: a mesoscale model 

MMPR: meteorological model performance analysis 

MOZART: Model for Ozone And Related Chemical Tracers 

MPO: metropolitan planning organization 

MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget 

NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard 

NH3: ammonia 

iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH4NO3: ammonium nitrate 

NO2: nitrogen dioxide 

NOx: oxides of nitrogen 

NSR: new source review 

NYQ: not yet quantified 

O3: ozone 

OC: organic carbon 

OH: hydroxyl radical 

OTAQ: EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

PBL: planetary boundary layer 

PM: particulate matter 

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

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

PMC: coarse particulate matter 

PMF: positive matrix factorization 

RACM: reasonably available control measures 

RACT: reasonably available control technology 

RFP: reasonable further progress 

RMD: Receptor Modeling Documentation 

RRF: relative response factor 

RTP: regional transportation plan 

SANDWICH: Sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, inferred carbonaceous material balance 

approach 

SC: South Coast 

SIP: state implementation plan 

SJV: San Joaquin Valley 

SJVAPCD: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

SMAT: Speciated Modeled Attainment Test 

SO2: sulfur dioxide 

SOA: secondary organic aerosol 

STN: Speciation Trends Network 

SOx: oxides of sulfur 

TCM: transportation control measures 

tpd: tons per day 

TIP: transportation improvement program 

TSD: technical support document 

VMT: vehicle miles traveled 

VOC: volatile organic compounds 

WOE: weight of evidence 

v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technical Support Document
 

for Proposed Action on the
 

San Joaquin Valley 2008 PM2.5 Plan and San Joaquin Valley 

Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy 

I. Introduction and Background 

This document provides supporting information and analysis for EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking actions on the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

(adopted April 30, 2008 and revised on June 17, 2010) and the related portions of the California 

Air Resources Board’s State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (adopted 

with amendments on September 27, 2007 and revised and updated on April 24, 2009). It 

identifies the Clean Air Act requirements for PM2.5 plans and EPA’s regulations and policies 

interpreting these requirements. It also describes the elements of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 

2007 State Strategy intended to address these requirements and EPA’s evaluation of whether the 

State’s submittals meet them. 

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

1. The PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

a. Level and Form of the Standard 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) to add new annual and 24-hour standards for 

PM2.5, particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. 62 FR 38652.1 The annual 

standards are set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μ/m3

), as determined by the 3­

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

65 μ/m3

, as determined by the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. 

40 CFR § 50.7. 

b. Health Effects 

EPA established primary air quality standards for PM2.5 based on substantial evidence 

from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with 

exposures to elevated levels of the pollutant. Epidemiological studies have shown statistically 

significant correlations between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature mortality. Other important 

1 The original annual and daily standards for particulate matter generally less than or equal to 10 

micrometers in diameter (referred to as PM10) were established in 1987. 52 FR 24663 (July 1, 1987). In the 1997 

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

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

standards were retained but the annual standards were revoked. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). The San 

Joaquin Valley is designated as attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. See 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2009). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Approval 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

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

absences from school or work, and restricted activity days), changes in lung function and 

increased respiratory symptoms, as well as new evidence for more subtle indicators of 

cardiovascular health. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, 

people with heart and lung disease, and children. See, EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate 

Matter, No. EPA/600/P–99/002aF and EPA/600/P–99/002bF, October 2004. 

Attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards is estimated to lead to reductions in health 

impacts, including tens of thousands fewer premature deaths each year, thousands fewer hospital 

admissions and emergency room visits each year, hundreds of thousands fewer absences from 

work and school, and hundreds of thousands fewer respiratory illnesses in children annually. See 

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

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

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

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

, based 

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

remain unchanged. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). Attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 standards is 

estimated to lead to additional reductions in health impacts over the 1997 standard, including 

approximately 1,200 to 13,000 fewer premature deaths each year, 1,630 fewer hospital 

admissions and 1,200 fewer emergency room visits for asthma each year, 350,000 fewer 

absences from work and school, and 155,300 fewer respiratory illnesses in children annually. 72 

FR 20586, 20587. 

2. Implementing the PM2.5 NAAQS 

a. Designations 

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

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

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

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

recommendations are due within one year of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. In the 

case of the 1997 PM2.5 standards, however, Congress amended section 107 to extend the 

schedule for EPA to initiate the designations process until three calendar years of air quality data, 

measured at Federal Reference Method monitors, were gathered. See section 6102(c)(1)(d) of 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. EPA and state air quality agencies initiated 

the monitoring process for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999 and deployed all air quality monitors by 

January 2001. As a result, the designation process for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS did not begin 

until 2004. 

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

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

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Approval 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

modifications suggested by EPA are inappropriate. CAA section 107(d(1)(B)(ii). Whether or 

not a state or tribe provides a recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it 

deems appropriate. 

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

based on ambient air quality data from 2001 to 2003, and supporting documentation by February 

15, 2004. California submitted its recommendations on February 11, 2004. See Letter, 

Catherine Witherspoon, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA-Region 9, February 11, 2004. On 

December 17, 2004, EPA issued final PM2.5 designations for areas violating the 1997 standards, 

including the San Joaquin Valley air basin. They were published in the Federal Register on 

January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944) and became effective on April 5, 2005. The designations are 

codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.2 

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

must develop an implementation plan that includes, among other things, a demonstration 

showing how it will attain the ambient standards by the attainment dates required in the CAA. 

Under section 172(b) for PM2.5 , states have up to three years after final designations to submit 

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

the effective date of the designations. 

b. PM2.5 Planning Requirements 

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

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

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

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

accordance with the statutory requirements of the CAA set forth in subpart 1 of Part D of Title 1, 

i.e., sections 171–179B. 

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

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

PM2.5 implementation rule and preamble are given in Table IA-1 below. 

2 On November 13, 2009, EPA designated the SJV, along with other areas in the Country, as 

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

demonstrating attainment of the 35 μg/m3 24-hour standards by December 14, 2012. 74 FR 58688, 58689. The 

2008 PM2.5 Plan we are reviewing in this TSD addresses only the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 standards of 65 μg/m3 and 

annual standards of 15 μg/m3

. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Approval 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table IA-1 

CAA Requirements for PM2.5 Attainment State Implementation Plans 

CAA 

Section 

PM2.5 Implementation Rule Description TSD Rule Preamble 

172(a)(2)(A) § 51.1 004 20600-20602 Attainment date and attainment 

date extensions II.E. 

172(b) § 51.1002(a) 20599-50600 SIP submittal date I.B.3. 

172(c)(1) § 51.1010 20609-20633 

Reasonably available control 

measures (including reasonably 

available control technology) 

II.D. 

172(c)(1) § 51.1007(a) 20601-20602 Demonstration of expeditious 

attainment II.F. 

172(c)(2) § 51.1009 20633-20640 Reasonable further progress II.H. 

172(c)(3) § 51.1008 20647-20651 Emissions inventory II.A. 

172(c)(6) § 51.1007(b) 

§ 51.1010(b) 

20601-20602 

20658-20660 

Enforceable limitation limits, other 

control measures, means or 

techniques and schedules and 

timetables for compliance as 

necessary for attainment 

II.D. & 

F. 

172(c)(7) § 51.1002(b) 20600 CAA section 110(a)(2) 

requirements N/A 

172(c)(9) § 51.1012 20642-20645 

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain or make reasonable further 

progress 

II.J. 

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

control II.C. 

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

attainment 

II.D. & 

F. 

176(c) § 93.118(e)(4) 20645-20646 Motor vehicle emissions budgets I.D. 

172(c)(2) & 

(6) § 51.1011 20640 Mid-course review II.I. 

110(a)(2)(K) 

§ 51.1007(a), 

§ 51.112, and 

Appendix W 

20605-20609 Air Quality Modeling II.F. 

In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public 

health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of four provisions in the PM2.5 

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

Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule, EPA Docket No. OAR-2003-0062,” June 25, 

2007. These provisions are: 

EPA- Region 9 Page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Approval 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

NOx and SO2 RACT requirements for electric generating units (EGUs). 72 FR 20586 at 20623­

20628. 

2. Allowing states to defer establishing emissions limits for condensable PM until January 1, 

2011. 72 FR 20586 at 20652 (codified at 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)). 

3. Revising the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT from a presumption that 

a given source must bear a cost similar to other sources to a consideration of whether the cost of 

a measure is reasonable for the regulated entity to bear, in light of benefits. 72 FR 20586 at 

20619-20620. 

4. Allowing states to use emissions reductions from outside of the nonattainment area to 

demonstration RFP. 72 FR 20586 at 20636. EPA granted the petition for this provision on May 

13, 2010. Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David 

Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 2010. 

The disputed provisions of the PM2.5 implementation rule are, for the most part, not 

relevant to today’s proposal because California did not rely on them in developing the PM2.5 plan 

for the San Joaquin Valley. We address each of these provisions later in this TSD: the first three 

in section II.D. (RACM/RACT) and the fourth in section II.H. (RFP). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Approval 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

The San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area is located in the southern part of 

California’s Central Valley. It is home to almost 4 million people and is the nation’s leading 

agricultural area. Stretching over 250 miles from north to south and averaging 80 miles wide, it 

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

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

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

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

IB-3. The local air district is the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD 

or District). 

1. PM2.5Levels in the SJV 

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

the highest recorded in the United States at 22.6 μg/m3 and 70 μg/m3 for the 2007-2009 period.3 

Since comprehensive monitoring began for PM2.5 in the SJV in the late 1990, the area has seen a 

significant decline in ambient levels, especially in the 2000-2005 time period. See Figures IB-1 

and IB-2. However, over the past five years, PM2.5 concentrations have increased at most 

monitoring sites in the Valley. Figure IB-3 is a map of the current monitoring system in the SJV. 

3 See EPA, Air Quality Subsystem, Design Value Report, August 9, 2010. These values are the highest 

design values in the SJV. A design value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific methodology from 

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

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

1(c)(1) 1(c)(2), respectively. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 6 
 

 

 

Figure IB-1 

Figure IB-2
 

EPA- Region 9 Page 7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Approval 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Figure IB-3 – Ambient Monitoring Locations In the San Joaquin Valley 

Source: SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Figure 1-4. 

2. Seasonality and Chemical Composition of PM2.5 in the SJV 

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

nitrate (NO3); sulfate (SO4); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic 

compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and other trace elements) 

generally referred to as crustal material, although it may contain material from other sources. 

Primary particles are emitted directly into the air as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental 

carbon from diesel engines or fire activities, or condensable organic particles from gasoline 

engines). Secondary particles (e.g., nitrate and sulfate) form in the atmosphere as a result of 

chemical reactions between precursor pollutants such as NOx, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. 

Understanding the compounds that make up an area’s PM2.5 problem is necessary in order to 

develop control strategies that are effective for attaining the NAAQS. 72 FR 20586 at 20589. 

In the SJV, the levels and nature of PM2.5 vary by season. See Figures IB-4 to IB-7. 

Higher PM2.5 concentrations occur during the winter, between late November and February, 

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

experiences extended periods of stagnant weather with cold, damp, foggy conditions; conditions 

that are conducive to the formation of secondary ammonium nitrate particulates and encourage 

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

, the level of 

the annual standards. 

Figures IB-4 

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Figure IB-5 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H-4. 

Figure IB-7 

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Figure IB-8 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix H, Figure H-7. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

Plan 

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

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

the SJV PM2.5 [attainment] SIP: 

1.	 2008 PM2.5 Plan, adopted on April 30, 2010 by the SJVAPCD and on May22, 2008 by 

CARB, submitted with the adopting resolutions and other supporting documentation by 

CARB on June 30, 2008. See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Governing Board Resolution: In the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 2008 PM2.5 Plan, April 30, 2008; CARB Resolution No. 

08-28, May 22, 2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, June 30, 2008 with enclosures. 

This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register proposal as the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan, or simply the Plan. 

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

and adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB, submitted with the adopting resolution 

and other supporting documentation by CARB on November 16, 2007. See CARB 

Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 

2007, with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal 

Register proposal as the 2007 State Strategy. 

3.	 Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy, adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB, submitted with the adopting resolution 

and other supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009.4 See CARB 

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

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

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

proposal as the 2009 State Strategy Status Report. 

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

June 17, 2010 by the SJVAPCD, submitted with adopting resolution and other supporting 

documentation by CARB on September 15, 2010. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

Resolution No. 10-06-18, June 17, 2010 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, September 

15, 2010, with enclosures. 

Future references to the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan in this TSD and the 

Federal Register proposal will be to the Strategy and Plan as revised in 2009 and 2010, 

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

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

EPA- Region 9	 Page 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

respectively, unless explicitly noted otherwise. We will also refer to the 2007 State Strategy as 

revised in 2009 as the revised 2007 State Strategy. 

In addition to these plan submittals, the District and CARB have adopted and submitted 

numerous rules that reduce emissions in the San Joaquin Valley and contribute to progress in 

meeting the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area. See Appendices A and B of this TSD. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

Submittals 

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 

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

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

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

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

Both the SJVAPCD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory 

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

PM2.5 Plan. The District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and 

held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2008. See SJVUAPCD 

Governing Board Resolution, page 3. CARB also provide the required public notice and 

opportunity for public comment prior to its May 22, 2008 public hearing on the Plan. See 

CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 SIP, April 25, 

2008. The District also provided the required public notice and hearing on the 2010 revision to 

the Plan. See SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 10-06-18, June 17, 2010. 

CARB also conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a 

public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See 

CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for 

California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards, 

May 7, 2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007. CARB also provide the 

required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hearing prior to its April 24, 

2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a 

Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan and 

Consider Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 and CARB Resolution No. 09-34, 

April 24, 2009. 

Each of the four SIP submittals that comprise the SJV PM2.5 attainment state 

implementation plan include proof of publication for notices of SJVAPCD and CARB public 

hearings as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed. 

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals 

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

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

affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after 

the day of submittal by operation of law. A completeness review allows us to determine if the 

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

We make completeness determinations using criteria we have established in 40 CFR part 

51, Appendix V. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information and 

EPA- Region 9 Page 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

technical support information. The administrative information provides documentation that the 

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

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

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

maintenance of the air quality standards. 

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

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

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

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

The June 30, 2008 submittal of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan went complete by operation of law 

on December 30, 2008. We found the 2010 revision to the Plan complete on September 23, 

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

2010. The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the August 12, 2009 

submittal of the 2009 revisions to the Strategy went complete by operation of law on May 16, 

2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

E. Adequacy of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 

Plan 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

conform to the SIP’s goals of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of 

the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the SIP’s 

goals means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS, (2) 

worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any 

interim milestone. 

Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the EPA’s transportation conformity 

rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s regional 

transportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to the 

applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (budgets) contained in the SIP. An attainment, maintenance, or RFP SIP 

should include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP year or last year of the 

maintenance plan, as appropriate. Budgets are generally established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors. 

PM2.5 attainment and RFP plans should identify budgets for direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 

attainment plan precursors. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include direct PM2.5 motor 

vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. A state must also consider whether 

re-entrained paved and unpaved road dust or highway and transit construction dust are 

significant contributors and should be included in the direct PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR § 

93.102(b) and § 93.122(f) and the conformity rule preamble at 69 FR, 40004, 40031–40036 

(July 1, 2004). In determining whether the on-road mobile source emissions of a PM2.5 

attainment plan precursor are significant, state and local agencies should use the criteria for 

insignificance findings provided in 40 CFR § 93.109(k). See also 70 FR 24280, 24282-24287 

(May 6, 2005). 

Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted SIP, EPA must first determine that the 

budgets are adequate. In order for us to find the budgets adequate and eventually approvable, the 

submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and be 

approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. The budgets must reflect all of the motor 

vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR § 

93.118(e)(4)(v). 

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan included budgets for direct PM2.5 and NOx for the attainment 

year of 2014 and the RFP years of 2009 and 2012. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Section 7.2.2 and 

Appendix C. The direct PM2.5 budgets included tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear emissions but 

did not include paved road, unpaved road, and road construction dust because these were 

determined to be insignificant contributors to PM2.5 levels in the Valley. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-5. 

No budgets for SO2 were included because on-road emissions of SO2 were also considered 

insignificant. Id. No budgets were included for either VOC or ammonia because neither was 

considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See section II.C of this 

TSD. 

3. April 23, 2010 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 

On April 23, 2010, we notified CARB that we had found the budgets in the 2008 PM2.5 

Plan for the RFP milestone years 2009 and 2012 were adequate and that the MVEBs for the 

attainment year of 2014 were inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. We determined 

that the attainment year budgets were inadequate because they lacked specificity or 

enforceability of the emissions reductions relied on to demonstration attainment and therefore 

did not meet the requirements of our adequacy criteria at 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)). See letter 

Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, “RE: Adequacy Status of San 

Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets,” April 23, 2010. Our finding is document below in Table IE-1. below. We 

published a notice of our findings at 75 FR 26749 (May 12, 2010). The finding is available at 

EPA’s transportation conformity website, www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

pastsips.htm. 

4. Proposed Action on the MVEBs 

The adequacy determination was based on our preliminary review of the plan. During 

our subsequent more in depth review of the Plan, as documented in section II.H. of this TSD, we 

have determined that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not provide for reasonable further progress as 

required by CAA section 172(c)(2). As a result of this determination, we are proposing to 

disapprove the budgets for the RFP years. Specifically, the budgets, when considered together 

with all other emission sources, are inconsistent with applicable requirements for reasonable 

further progress and attainment. See Table IE-1. 

During our subsequent in-depth review of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, as documented in section 

II.C. of this TSD, we also determined that reductions in emissions of VOC may be effective at 

reducing PM2.5 levels in the SJV. As such, EPA is proposing to find that VOC is a PM2.5 

attainment plan precursor that should be addressed in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. Should we finalized 

this determination, the revised PM2.5 SIP would need to include budgets for VOC for the RFP 

and attainment years. The 2008 Plan does not currently include either RFP or attainment year 

VOC MVEBs.5 

5 Note that the RFP budgets that EPA found adequate on April 23, 2010 remain adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes unless and until a final action finding the budgets inadequate and disapproving them becomes 

effective. In addition, no conformity analysis is required for VOC unless and until EPA or the State makes a final 

determination that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

We are proposing to disapprove the budgets for the attainment year of 2014, which we 

have already found to be inadequate, based on our proposed determination that the SJV 2008 

PM2.5 Plan does not provide for attainment. See sections II.C. and II. G. of this TSD. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 16 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table IE-1 

Revised Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 

September 2010 

Adequacy Review Criteria 

(40 CFR part 93) 

Is Criterion 

Satisfied? Reference in SIP Docu

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) 

The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment. 

N (Revised) 

/N 

EPA has concluded that the budgets for the considered together with all other emission requirement to demonstrate reasonable furthhour PM2.5 standards. This finding is based 

demonstrations in Chapter 8 which do not semissions as required by the PM2.5 impleme

51.1009). Other relevant materials include strategy in chapter 6 of the 2008 SJV PM2.5 

The attainment year 2014 motor vehicle emreductions from CARB commitments to ach

the SJV and not from specified control meaadopted in regulatory form. The budgets for 

from re-entrained road dust (paved and unpactivities because neither are significant con

SJV. See SJV PM2.5 Plan, pp. 7-5 & 7-6. 

The SJV PM2.5 Plan includes budgets only f

not include budgets for VOC, which EPA h

attainment plan precursor for the SJV. ShoVOC should be addressed in the RFP and aPlan does not include budgets for the other 

vehicles are an insignificant contributor to P

controls on them would be ineffective at red

(ammonia). See SJV PM2.5 Plan, pp. 7-4 & 

EPA- Region 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley
 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy
 

A. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 

CAA section 172(c)(3) requires a state to submit a “comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant.” Pursuant to this 

section, the PM2.5 implementation rule requires a state to submit, within three years of the 

designation of one of its areas as nonattainment, a statewide emissions inventories of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. These inventories should meet the data requirements of EPA’s 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A). 40 CFR 

§ 51.1008(a)(1).6 Direct PM2.5 includes condensable PM. 40 CFR § 51.1000 . PM2.5 precursors 

are NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia (40 CFR § 51.1000). The state must report inventories for 

each, even if it has determined that control of any of these precursors is not necessary for 

attainment. 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1) and 72 FR 20586 at 20648. 

The PM2.5 implementation rule also requires a state to submit a baseline emissions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

demonstrations. 72 FR 20586 at 20648 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(2). 

EPA has issued the “Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations,” EPA–454/R–05–001, November 2005 (available at www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/eidocs/eiguid/index.html). EPA developed this guidance document to complement the 

CERR and to provide specific guidance on how to develop baseline emissions inventories for 8­

hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze SIPs. 

The emissions inventories required under the PM2.5 implementation rule (as opposed to 

the CERR) are SIP provisions that must be approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k) and are 

subject to public hearing requirements pursuant to sections 110(a)(2) and (l). A state should 

include in its SIP submittal documentation explaining how the emissions data were calculated. 

In estimating mobile source emissions, a state should use the latest emissions models and 

planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. 72 FR 20586 at 20647. For 

6 In late 2008, EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) at 73 FR 76539 (December 

17, 2008). The AERR updated the CERR reporting requirements by consolidating and harmonizing new emissions 

reporting requirements with pre-existing sets of reporting requirements under the NOX SIP Call (which does not 

apply to California). Because this AERR was not finalized until after the submittal of the SJV PM2.5 Plan, its data 

requirements, in that they differ from the CERR requirements, do not apply to the Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

EMFAC. Currently this is EMFAC2007. See 68 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

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

the emissions inventories in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. We are not proposing any SIP action on 

the statewide inventory here, only on the SJV inventories. EPA will address the statewide 

inventory in a separate rulemaking. 

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

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

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

for the base year of 2002 and baseline years of 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 

2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023.7 These statewide emissions inventories are assembled 

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

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

(CEFS) databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F. In 2004, CARB submitted the 

2002 base year inventory including all necessary data elements to EPA as required by the CERR. 

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

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

adopted prior to December 2006. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1 and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, 

p. 1. Specific adjustments for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 time period, as 

well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 and pesticide 

emissions, are described in the introductory section to Appendix A and can also be found in 

Appendix B to the December 2007 draft of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

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

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

inventories are found in Appendix B of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. Both average winter day and 

average annual day inventories are provided for the year 2005 (the reference year for the air 

quality modeling) and each year from 2009 to 2014. A winter inventory is provided because the 

majority of high PM2.5 days in the SJV occur during the winter months between November and 

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

estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1. These inventories provide 

the basis for the control measure analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations. 

As a starting point for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s inventories, the District used CARB’s 2002 

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

future years using CEFSv 1.06. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. B-1. 

7 The 2007 State Strategy addresses both 8-hour ozone standard and the PM2.5 standards; therefore, 

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

hour ozone plans. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

All inventories include emissions from point, area, on-road, and non-road sources. None 

specifically show emissions from non-anthropogenic sources (that is, natural sources) although 

inventories developed for input into the air quality modeling do include such sources. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, p. G-3. 

A summary of the baseline planning inventories for the years 2005, 2009, 2012 and 2014 

from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is provided in Table A-1 below. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

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

time as the draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan and were subject to public hearing as part of final version of 

the Plan. See SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 3. 

Consistent with the PM2.5 implementation rule, the Plan uses a 2002 base year inventory. 

When considered together with the inventory documentation in Appendix F of the State Strategy 

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

elements required by EPA’s emissions inventory guidance. The inventories are based on the best 

and most current information available at the time the Plan was developed, address all source 

categories and use the latest EPA-approved version of the State’s mobile source emissions 

model, EMFAC2007. 

Based on our evaluation discussed above, we propose to find that the 2002 emissions 

inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan meet the CAA section 172(c)(3) 

requirement for “comprehensive, accurate, current, inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant” at the time of their submittal in 2008. We also find that the 

baseline inventories in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan provide an adequate basis for the reasonably 

available control measure, reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations in the Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 20 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table A-1 

Emissions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattain

(tons per day) 

Annual Average Day Winte

2005 2009 2012 2014 2005 2009 

PM2.5 

Stationary Sources 13.3 13.8 14.2 14.4 12.8 13.3 

Area Sources 51.5 46.8 45.8 45.2 54.6 51.2 

On-Road Mobile Sources 12.1 11.3 9.9 8.9 12.2 11.4 

Off-Road Mobile Sources 9.0 7.9 7.2 6.6 8.1 7.0 Total 86.0 79.8 77.0 75.0 87.6 82.9 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Stationary Sources 80.1 62.7 58.7 56.5 71.9 58.5 

Area Sources 13.5 11.0 10.8 10.7 18.2 16.3 

On-Road Mobile Sources 327.9 297.4 243.8 206.7 342.1 311.5 

Off-Road Mobile Sources 153.9 129.7 111.1 102.2 141.0 118.4 

Total 575.4 500.9 424.4 376.2 573.1 504.7 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Stationary Sources 20.4 20.6 21.5 22.0 19.6 20.0 

Area Sources 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 On-Road Mobile Sources 2.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.5 0.7 Off-Road Mobile Sources 2.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.3 08 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table A-1 

Emissions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattain

(tons per day) 

Annual Average Day Winte

2005 2009 2012 2014 2005 2009 

Total 26.4 23.0 23.8 24.5 25.2 22.3 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

Stationary Sources 121.5 121.9 123.9 129.5 101.4 102.0 Area Sources 140.7 122.4 125.5 128.0 145.4 127.1 

On-Road Mobile Sources 94.8 76.5 64.8 57.2 99.7 80.9 

Off-Road Mobile Sources 62.7 54.3 50.8 48.5 55.7 48.6 

Total 419.8 375.2 365.0 363.2 402.2 358.6 

Ammonia 

Stationary Sources 19.8 21.0 22.2 23.0 19.8 21.0 

Area Sources 355.9 381.9 405.8 423.1 356.9 382.9 

On-Road Mobile Sources 6.2 5.3 5.0 4.8 6.2 5.3 Off-Road Mobile Sources 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 382.0 408.3 433.0 451.0 382.9 409.2 

Source: SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, Tables B-1 to B-5. 

EPA- Region 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

B. Air Quality Modeling 

1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 

The PM2.5 implementation rule requires states to submit an attainment demonstration 

based on modeling results. Specifically, 40 CFR § 51.1007(a) states: 

For any area designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS, the State must 

submit an attainment demonstration showing that the area will attain the annual 

and 24-hour standards as expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must 

meet the requirements of § 51.112 and Appendix W of this part and must include 

inventory data, modeling results, and emission reduction analyses on which the 

State has based its projected attainment date. The attainment date justified by the 

demonstration must be consistent with the requirements of § 51.1004(a). The 

modeled strategies must be consistent with requirements in § 51.1009 for RFP 

and in § 51.1010 for RACT and RACM. The attainment demonstration and 

supporting air quality modeling should be consistent with EPA’s PM2.5 modeling 

guidance.8 

See also 72 FR 20586 at 20665. 

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

emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding the 

NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will result in attainment of the 

standards. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality 

monitoring data in order to determine model performance. Once the performance is determined 

to be acceptable, future year emissions inventory changes are simulated to determine the 

relationship between emissions reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the air 

basin. 

The procedures for modeling PM2.5 as part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA's 

“Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

measurements. The CMB results are then refined with emissions inventory data to distinguish 

additional source categories, an area of influence analysis to better reflect particular sources 

affecting a monitor, and information from past photochemical modeling to assess how 

8 EPA’s November 9, 2005 final rule revising the “Guideline on Air Quality Models” in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W is available at www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

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

This modeling only addresses the annual PM2.5 standard. 

The receptor modeling approaches are supplemented with an attainment demonstration 

using photochemical modeling with the CMAQ (Community Multiscale Air Quality) model. 

This modeling incorporates data collected during the 2000 California Regional Particulate Air 

Quality Study (CRPAQS). The CMAQ modeling addresses both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 

standards. 

Based on verb tenses and on the structure of the Plan and appendices, it appears that the 

receptor modeling was completed first and was later supplemented with the photochemical 

modeling. Both the receptor and photochemical modeling focused primarily on the annual 

standard. The annual standard was viewed as controlling in the sense that any control strategy 

that provided for annual standard attainment would also provide sufficient emissions reductions 

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

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

A, Table A-9. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan discusses air quality modeling in the “Executive Summary,” 

Chapter 3 “What is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment?,” Appendix E “District Additions to the 

Conceptual Model,” Appendix F “SJV PM2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol,” Appendix G “Regional 

Air Quality Modeling,” Appendix H “Weight of Evidence,” and the additional appendices “2014 

Receptor Modeling Documentation,” “Meteorological Model Performance Analysis,” and 

“Regional Model Performance Analysis.” 

A conceptual model of PM2.5 formation in the San Joaquin Valley is in Appendices E and 

F, with additional material in Appendix H. The principal discussion of the photochemical 

modeling is in Appendices F and G, along with the two model performance appendices. 

Receptor modeling is covered in Chapter 3, Appendix F, and the Receptor Modeling 

Documentation appendix. The Weight of Evidence analysis in Appendix H discusses both the 

photochemical and receptor modeling, as well as ambient trends and other data in support of the 

attainment demonstration. 

Consistent with the Guidance, EPA considers the photochemical modeling to be the main 

basis for the PM2.5 attainment demonstration. Guidance, p. 15. The receptor modeling may be 

considered supplemental analysis to corroborate the photochemical modeling results, e.g. as part 

of a weight of evidence approach. Guidance, p. 213. 

a. Conceptual Description 

A conceptual description is a qualitative way of characterizing the nature of an area’s 

nonattainment problem. It can be helpful in identifying potential stakeholders and for 

developing a modeling protocol. It can also influence the choice of air quality model, modeling 

domain, grid cell size, priorities for quality assuring and refining emissions estimates, and the 

choice of initial diagnostic tests to identify potentially effective control strategies. In general, a 

EPA- Region 9 Page 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

performing a modeled attainment demonstration. 

The Guidance at pp. 128-130 lists 13 elements that should be addressed in the conceptual 

description. These are: 

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

2.	 relative importance of primary and secondary components of PM2.5 

3.	 most prevalent components of measured PM2.5 

4.	 components of measurements versus emissions 

5.	 areas with large gradients 

6.	 indications of limiting precursor for secondary formation 

7.	 monitored violations at locations subject to mesoscale wind patterns (e.g., at a 

coastline) differing from the general wind flow 

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

9.	 trends in design values or other air quality indicators that have accompanied 

emissions changes 

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

11. past modeling results 

12. distinctive meteorological measurements coinciding with exceedances 

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

The Plan contains ample discussion of the PM2.5 problem in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Much of the same material is covered in Chapter 3 (pp. 3-3 – 3-9); most of Appendix E; the 

modeling protocol in Appendix F at pp. F-13 – F-18, F-21, F-52 – F-56; and various parts of 

Appendix H. Appendix E on “District Additions to the Conceptual Model” has substantial 

discussion of the effect on PM2.5 concentrations of seasonal changes, the influence of 

meteorology including fog, dry deposition, and emissions variations. Analysis of data collected 

during the 2000 CRPAQS substantially added to the understanding of PM2.5 in the SJV. The 

cited chapters and appendices excerpt a number of conclusions from papers stemming from 

CRPAQS.9 

In brief, the PM2.5 problem in the San Joaquin Valley is mainly due to secondary 

particulates, especially in winter, with a substantial primary component throughout the year and 

during some winter episodes. PM2.5 concentrations are much higher in winter than in summer. 

April through September concentrations are generally less than 15 μg/m3

, the level of the annual 

NAAQS. Nonattainment of the annual NAAQS is driven by high wintertime concentrations, 

including episodes during stagnant, moist conditions. Stagnant conditions and surface radiation 

inversions restrict pollutant dispersion, allowing concentrations to build to high levels. The 

enclosure of the SJV by mountain ranges restricts air flow and helps the inversion form a cap 

over the polluted air. Concentrations are highest at the southern end of the Valley, which is more 

9 Appendix F at p. F-71 also includes by reference the paper “Conceptual Model of Particulate Matter 

Pollution in the California San Joaquin Valley,” Document Number CP045-1-98, 8 September 1998, prepared by: 

Betty Pun and Christian Seigneur, Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. This paper has conclusions 

similar to those covered in the Plan sections listed above, although it is based on analysis of data collected during an 

earlier study, the 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study (or IMS95. 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

enclosed than the northern end and experiences stagnation during winter and recirculation of 

polluted air via the Fresno eddy during summer. 

The dominant component of PM2.5 in the SJV is ammonium nitrate, formed from the 

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

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

nitrate formation is enhanced during the cool, moist winter months. Based on ambient 

concentrations and on previous modeling work, ammonia appears to be so abundant that 

formation of ammonium nitrate is limited by the rate of HNO3 (nitric acid) formation via 

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

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

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

vehicles, and a smaller contribution from secondary organic aerosols. During CRPAQS it was 

found that organic carbon has a strong spatial gradient, being much higher in urban areas, 

especially during high PM2.5 episodes. This gradient was explained as being due to the greater 

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

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

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

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

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

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

suitable for speciated rollback in the receptor modeling approaches and little need to focus on the 

24-hour standard for the photochemical modeling, although 24-hour modeling was performed. 

EPA believes that the conceptual description of the PM2.5 problem in SJV provided in the 

Plan is adequately documented, convincing, and formed an adequate basis for the development 

of the modeling protocol and the analysis work. 

b. Modeling Protocol 

A modeling protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all phases 

of the modeling study, such as describing the background and objectives for the study, creating a 

schedule and organizational structure for the study, developing the input data, conducting model 

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

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

producing documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office review and approval. The 

Guidance at pp. 133-134 describes a minimum list of topics to be addressed in the modeling 

protocol: 

1. Overview of Modeling/Analysis Project 

a. Management structure 

b. Technical committees or other communication procedures to be used 

c. Participating organizations 

d. Schedule for completion of attainment demonstration 

EPA- Region 9 Page 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

area(s)) 

2.	 Model and Modeling Inputs 

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

b.	 Modeling domain 

c.	 Horizontal and vertical resolution 

d.	 Specification of initial and boundary conditions 

e.	 Episode selection 

f.	 Description of meteorological model setup 

g.	 Development of emissions inputs 

h.	 Geographic area identified for application of the attainment test(s) 

i.	 Methods used to quality-assure emissions, meteorological, and other model inputs 

3.	 Model Performance Evaluation 

a.	 Description of the ambient data base 

b.	 Description of the evaluation procedures 

c.	 Identification of possible diagnostic testing that could be used to improve model 

performance 

4.	 Supplemental Analyses 

a.	 Description of the additional analyses to be completed to corroborate the model 

attainment test 

b.	 Outline of the plans for conducting a weight of evidence determination, should it 

be necessary 

5.	 Procedural Requirements 

a.	 Identification of how modeling and other analyses will be archived and 

documented 

b.	 Identification of specific deliverables to EPA Regional Office 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling protocol is contained in Appendix F, with descriptions of 

both the receptor modeling approaches and the photochemical modeling. Many aspects of the 

photochemical modeling that are suitable for inclusion in a protocol are also covered in 

Appendix G and the “Regional Model Performance Analysis” appendix. 

The protocol covers all of the above topics, with the exception of identification of how 

modeling and other analyses will be archived. There is no discussion of this topic, nor any 

description of how modeling data files may be accessed, should EPA or other interested parties 

wish to replicate the results of the analysis. See Guidance, p. 117. 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

c. Air Quality Model Selection 

A model should meet several general criteria for it to be a candidate for consideration in 

an attainment demonstration. Guidance, p.136. These general criteria are consistent with 

requirements in 40 CFR § 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. EPA does not recommend 

a specific model for use in attainment demonstrations. At present, there is no single model 

which has been extensively tested and shown to be clearly superior than its alternatives. Thus, 

40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a preferred model for use in attainment 

demonstrations of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on the language in Appendix W, models used for 

these purposes should meet requirements in the Appendix for alternative models. 

States should use a non-proprietary model, that is, a model whose source code is 

available for free (or for a reasonable cost) and whose code can be revised by the state in order 

to perform diagnostic analyses and/or to improve the model’s ability to describe observations in 

a credible manner. A model should meet several additional prerequisites before being used to 

support an attainment demonstration. It should be: 

1.	 revised in response to a scientific peer review, 

2.	 appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical basis, 

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

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

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

perform sufficiently); and 

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

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

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model selected. CMAQ is a “state-of-the-science 

[model that]... has been extensively peer-reviewed, is well-documented, and ... has been applied 

successfully in a range of environments.” The Plan mentions certain California-specific updates 

to the model , but these are not described other than via a citation. 

There is no discussion of any alternative models considered. EPA, however, believes that 

the choice of the CMAQ model is adequately justified because the EPA-sponsored CMAQ is 

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

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s chemical mechanism selection is also discussed at p. F-80 and p. G-2, 

with SAPRC-99 selected for the gas phase mechanism, and CMAQ’s AE4-AQ as the aqueous 

phase mechanism. These are little described except for a journal paper citation. 

There is little discussion of alternative mechanisms considered. EPA, however, believes 

that the e of SAPRC is adequately justified because SAPRC is a well-known and widely-used 

mechanism. 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

d. Episode Selection 

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

NAAQS (Guidance, p. 147): 

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

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

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

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

exist or is being planned for the annual NAAQS attainment test. Modeling at least a full 

year will also help ensure that a sufficient number of days are included in the relative 

response factor (RRF) calculations. 

2)	 Model episodes when high PM2.5 concentrations occur. Similar to modeling for the 

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

the NAAQS (in this case, the 1997 standard of 65 μg/m3

) and are close to the baseline 

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

select a variety of meteorological episodes which lead to high PM2.5 concentrations. In 

some cases, there may be very limited conditions which lead to high 24-hour average 

PM2.5 concentrations, and in other cases there may be a wide variety of cases. The 

specific situation in each nonattainment area will determine the number of episodes and 

the time periods which need to be modeled. For example, if exceedance level PM2.5 

concentrations in an area only occur in the winter, then a limited number of winter days 

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

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s episode selection is not discussed, instead a full year of modeling was 

performed. As mentioned above, there was little need to focus on the 24-hour standard 

attainment since ambient concentrations were already consistent with attainment of the NAAQS 

at the time the Plan was developed. Therefore there was no selection of particular periods or 

episodes of interest for the 24-hour NAAQS, although 24-hour modeling was in fact performed. 

EPA believes this is marginally adequate. Since nonattainment of the annual standard in 

the SJV is known to be driven by frequent particular episodes in winter, it would have been 

preferable to choose and examine these particular periods in more detail in order to ensure the 

model performs well during such periods. However, because the model is used in a relative 

sense in the attainment demonstration, the design value already attaining the 24-hour standard 

would have been scaled by a modeled RRF that reflects emissions reductions, and so the 

predicted 24-hour PM2.5 design value would also have attained the standard. 

e. Domain, Domain Size, and Spatial Resolution 

i. Domain Size 

The principal determinants of model domain size are the nature of the PM2.5 problem and 

the scale of the emissions which impact the nonattainment area. Isolated nonattainment areas 

that are not affected by regional transport of PM and its precursors may be able to use a 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

relatively small domain. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall into this category. The 

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

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

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

ii. Horizontal Resolution 

EPA is comfortable recommending that states may use grid cell sizes as large as 12 

kilometers (km) for urban scale applications addressing secondary components of particulate 

matter. We are less sure about an acceptable upper limit for cell size in applications addressing 

primary components. We believe it is prudent to assume that, in some cases, cells as small as 4 

km (or possibly smaller) are needed. A state implementing the modeling/analysis protocol may 

wish to perform a diagnostic test using a grid model without chemistry to see whether estimated 

RRF’s for primary components are affected if one decreases the grid cell size from 12 km to 4 

km. Alternatively, large sources of primary PM can be modeled with a dispersion model or a 

combination of grid and dispersion models. We expect that modeling analyses for nonattainment 

areas will use grid cell sizes of 12 km or less. If a regional scale model is applied, most of the 

domain will likely cover rural/remote areas or locations which are not out of compliance with the 

NAAQS. For the regional outer nest of the domain, grid cells as large as 36 km may be used. 

Guidance, p. 157. 

iii. Vertical Layers 

There is no correct minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment demonstration. 

The vertical resolution will vary depending on the application. Greater resolution allows more 

precise estimation of mixing heights and avoids unrealistic step increases in mixing; alignment 

with the layers in the meteorological model can affect accuracy; the lowest layer should 

generally by no more than 50 meters thick; resolution above the boundary layer can generally be 

coarser. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100 millibars (mb) 

have used anywhere from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8-15 layers approximately within the 

boundary layer (below 2500 m) and 4-6 layers above the Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL). 

Guidance p. 159. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s modeling domain is discussed at pp. F-39, F-81, and especially p. G-3, 

and is shown on a map on page G-18. The domain uses a nested grid, with the inner domain 

containing the entire SJVAPCD and nonattainment area. The inner domain has a 4 km grid 

resolution and measures 320 by 356 km (80 by 89 grid cells). This inner domain is nested within 

an outer domain covering most of California (CCAQS domain), extending from the Pacific 

Ocean in the west to the deserts in Nevada and southern California in the east, and from the 

Tehachapi Mountains in the south to the Sacramento Valley in the north. It has a 12 km 

resolution and measures 756 km (63 grid cells) in both horizontal dimensions. Both domains 

used 15 vertical layers of varying thickness up to the 100 mb pressure level (the top of the 

meteorological domain) with the surface layer approximately 30 m thick. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

CCAQS modeling domain with the SJV modeling domain inset 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix G, Figure 1, p. G-18 

EPA believes the domain is adequate, even though the documentation is sparse on its 

selection. The Plan has no discussion of any rationale for the particular domain chosen or its 

horizontal and spatial resolution. Nevertheless, the inner domain meets all of the Guidance 

modeling domain characteristics listed above for spatial resolution and layer thickness. It also 

appears adequate for minimizing the influence of boundary conditions, since the east and west 

boundaries are in areas of sparse population, and the southern boundary is beyond a mountain 

range. The northern boundary is less satisfactory from this standpoint but is justified on the basis 

the Sacramento area being a different nonattainment area and all counties exceeding the PM2.5 

NAAQS being located in the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, well away from the 

northern boundary. In addition, this inner domain is nested within an outer one that also meets 

the Guidance criteria. 

f. Initial and Boundary Conditions 

If there is no larger regional model application available, then it is recommended that 

background boundary conditions be used to specify initial and boundary concentrations for the 

attainment demonstration modeling. However, concentration fields derived from a larger 

domain regional or global chemistry model (i.e., the nesting approach) is considered more 

credible than the assumption of static concentrations, since the pollutant concentration fields 

reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical processes driven by assimilated 

meteorological observations. Therefore, EPA recommends using boundary conditions derived 

from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible. We also recommend using a ramp-up 

period by beginning a simulation prior to the period of interest to diminish the importance of 

EPA- Region 9 Page 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

initial conditions. The recommended ramp-up period is at least 5-10 days for PM2.5. Diagnostic 

testing which indicates a large impact on the model results from initial or boundary conditions 

may indicate that the domain is not large enough or the ramp-up period is too short. In either 

case, it should generally be assumed that initial and boundary conditions do not change in the 

future. The use of altered initial or boundary conditions in the future year should be documented 

and justified. Guidance, p. 153. 

Plan initial and boundary conditions are discussed at p. F-81 and p. G-3. Boundary 

conditions for the outer domain were taken from the global chemical transport Model for Ozone 

And Related Chemical Tracers (MOZART). Initial conditions were estimated as an average of 

these conditions. The outer domain’s boundary conditions varied monthly, while the inner 

domain’s were computed from modeling of the outer domain and varied hourly. The use of 8­

day ramp-up (a.k.a. spin up) periods prior to each model simulation minimized the effect of 

uncertain initial conditions on the modeling. Page F-73 in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan has a table of 

annual average boundary conditions for the various chemical species; there is no information on 

the monthly or hourly values. There is no discussion of any diagnostic testing. 

EPA believes the initial and boundary conditions are acceptable, although sparsely 

documented (the preceding summary is essentially the full description in the Plan). Conditions 

appear to have been based on a reasonable procedure, and the ramp-up period appears adequate. 

g. Meteorological Model 

i. Meteorological Model Selection 

A description of the methods used to generate the meteorological fields should be 

included in the modeling protocol. In cases in which standard meteorological modeling (e.g. 

MM5, RAMS, or WRF in a retrospective analysis mode) is not used, EPArecommends that a 

detailed description of the technique that will be used to generate the three-dimensional 

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

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

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s meteorological model selection is discussed at p. F-81 and p. G-4, with 

MM5 selected. While there is no discussion of alternative meteorological models, since MM5 is 

well-known and widely used, and explicitly mentioned in the Guidance (p. 160) as being a 

suitable model, EPA believes the model choice is adequately justified. 

ii. Meteorological Model Domain 

It is expected that most attainment demonstrations will cover large areas and use nested 

grids. The outermost grid should capture all upwind areas that can reasonably be expected to 

influence local concentrations of PM2.5. In terms of selecting an appropriate meteorological 

modeling domain, a state should extend the grid 3 to 6 cells beyond the domains of each air 

quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. For example, if 4 km grid cells are to be used 

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

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

finely resolved air quality modeling domain. 

iii. Physics Options 

Most meteorological models have a suite of physics options that allow users to select how 

a given feature will be simulated. For example, there may be several options for specifying the 

planetary boundary layer scheme or the cumulus parameterization. In many situations, the 

optimal configuration cannot be determined without performing an initial series of sensitivity 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

periods that are of most interest. As an example, a wintertime PM simulation in the Midwest 

(with high measured nitrate concentrations) may need a meteorological model configuration that 

employs a land-surface model that properly handles snow cover fields and their effects on 

boundary layer humidities and temperatures. 

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

the appendix “Meteorological Model Performance Analysis” (hereafter, MMPA). A 14-month 

simulation was done (the year 2000 plus a month at either end), using three nested grids, having 

horizontal resolutions of 36 k, 12 km, and 4 km, from outermost to innermost. Maps of the 

domains appear as Figure 2 on p.G-19 and Figure 1 on p. 2 on of MMPA. (The innermost 

domain in the two figures does not match; the one on the map in Appendix G appears to be 

incorrect since it is square, whereas the horizontal dimensions are stated to be 94x85 grid cells in 

both appendices.) 

The meterological model used 30 vertical layers, extending up to the 100 mb pressure 

level, with the surface layer 30 m deep. The MMPA at pp. 2-3 states that sensitivity testing 

using 50 layers and a 15 m surface layer to better resolve atmospheric processes for stable winter 

conditions, but this doubled run times with little improvement in model results. (The context 

implies that this refers to the meteorological model rather than the air quality model.) The 

MMPA goes on to state “Many sensitivity studies were conducted using various model options 

EPA- Region 9 Page 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

to gain better agreement with observations.” The optimal configuration included various physics 

options listed, e.g., Grell cumulus parameterization, Blackadar boundary layer scheme, Dudhia 

ice scheme, Dudhia cloud radiation scheme, and Blackadar soil model. Analysis nudging was 

used for the outer 36 km and 12 km grids. 

The Location of the Three Nested Grids Designed to Study the
 

Meteorology And Air Quality in the SJV Domain
 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan “Meteorological Model Performance Analysis,” p. 2. 

EPA believes the meteorological domain and model set-up are acceptable although 

sparsely documented (the preceding summary is majority of the description provided in the 

Plan). It appears that there was substantial effort to improve the meteorological model 

performance before an optimal configuration was chosen. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

h. Meteorological Model Performance 

EPA recommends that states devote appropriate effort to the process of evaluating the 

meteorological inputs to the air quality model as we believe good meteorological model 

performance will yield more confidence in the predictions from the air quality model. This 

evaluation should determine if the meteorological model output fields represent a reasonable 

approximation of the actual meteorology that occurred during the modeling period. This can be 

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

second objective of the evaluation should be to identify and quantify the existing biases and 

errors in the meteorological predictions in order to allow for a downstream assessment of how 

the air quality modeling results are affected by issues associated with the meteorological data. 

This evaluation can be done via a more phenomenological assessment (i.e., generally qualitative 

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

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

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

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

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

parameters will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, mean 

absolute error, mean absolute normalized error, root mean square error (systematic and 

unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over large domains and entire 

seasons or years, it is recommended that the operational evaluation be broken down into 

individual segments such as geographic sub-regions and/or months/seasons to allow for a more 

comprehensive assessment of the meteorological strengths and weaknesses. 

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

particular modeling exercise, EPA recommends that a state identify and qualitatively rank in 

importance the specific meteorological parameters that influence air quality. . When evaluating 

meteorological models or any other source of meteorological data, the focus of the 

phenomenological evaluation should be on those specific meteorological phenomena that are 

thought to strongly affect air pollution formation and transport within the scope of a specific 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Meteorological Model Performance Analysis” (MMPA). There is an operational evaluation 

using three methods for temperature, relative humidity, and horizontal wind components for the 

full year and by season. Evaluation Method 1 considers mean and standard deviation, 

correlation, root mean square error, mean bias, and index of agreement; this information is stated 

EPA- Region 9 Page 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

to be in Attachment A, which is not provided. Results are stated (MMPA p. 6) to be generally 

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

Agreement between predictions and observations varies little seasonally. 

Evaluation Method 2 involves examination of frequency histograms for temperature, 

wind speed, and humidity for 24-hour periods in alternate months. This information is stated to 

be in Attachment B, which is not provided. The MMPA states (p. 8): “The frequency 

distribution of air temperature, relative humidity, and mixing ratio for observations and model 

results show reasonably good agreement. There are only small differences in observed and 

simulated diurnal wind speed patterns.” This appears to be the case for the Fresno examples 

given. 

Finally, Evaluation Method 3 consists of hourly comparisons for wind speed, direction, 

and temperature over two five-day periods within each modeled month. This information is 

stated to be in Attachment C, which is not provided, although graphs of a December, 1990 fiveday period for Fresno are shown. The MMPA (p. 9) concludes “the model can capture the 

diurnal evolution of observed wind speed, wind direction and temperature variations reasonably 

well,” despite the fact that “the estimates for the evolution of the wind speed and direction differ 

somewhat. However, the examination of all figures given in Attachment C indicates that the 

model does capture the overall evolution.” 

The overall conclusion in the Plan is that the MM5 simulations “reproduce the overall 

statistical characteristics of observed meteorological conditions”. There is some underestimate 

of maximum surface temperature, although the model is able to capture the large temperature 

variations that occur in some periods. 

Only the observational evaluation just described was presented in the Plan; there was no 

discussion of a phenomenological evaluation as described in the Guidance. 

EPA believes the meteorological model performance was adequate, although sparsely 

documented in part due to the accidental omission of several attachments to the Meteorological 

Model Performance Analysis appendix. It is nevertheless apparent that substantial thought and 

effort went into the operational evaluation, including for particular periods throughout the year, 

rather than just overall annual statistics. 

EPA is concerned by the lack of a phenomenological evaluation. The Plan includes no 

assessment of the impact that difficulties encountered in the meteorological modeling would 

have on the air quality modeling. There is also no discussion of whether phenomena important 

to PM2.5 formation in the SJV are adequately captured in the meteorological modeling, overall or 

for various locations and times of year. Presumably such considerations were part of the overall 

development of the air quality modeling application, but they are not documented in the Plan. 

i. Emissions Inventory 

Air quality modeling requires emissions inputs for base case, baseline, and future 

modeling years. Preparation of emissions data for air quality models for the base and future 

EPA- Region 9 Page 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

years requires several steps. First, a state needs to compile base-year inventories for its modeling 

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

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

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

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

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

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

vertically allocate emission inventories to the resolution needed by air quality model. Fourth, 

modelers must collect data on growth rates and existing control programs for use in projecting 

the base year emission inventories to the future year, and then use an emissions model to prepare 

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

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

modeling. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s emissions inputs are discussed at p. G-3, and references to the need for 

emissions input to modeling appear at various places in Appendix F. Page G-3 states 

A spatially, temporally, and chemically resolved emissions inventory of 

combined area, mobile, and point sources was generated using the California 

Emissions Forecasting System (CEFS) version 1.06 with offline adjustments. The 

inventory includes emissions estimates for gaseous and particulate species of 

anthropogenic and biogenic origin. Gridded hourly emissions were developed for 

the CMAQ modeling domain for the years 2000, 2005, and 2014 (baseline). 

The Plan does not include a discussion of the procedures used to spatially or temporally 

allocate emissions for input to the model, other than the reference to CEFS. Quality assurance 

methods for emissions inputs are mentioned at p. G-3 but not discussed: “Quality assurance 

checks of domain emissions totals and spatial distribution were performed at various steps.” 

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

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

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

concentration variations over space and time. 

EPA believes the modeling emissions inventory preparation procedures were adequate 

but sparsely documented (the preceding excerpts are essentially the full description in the Plan). 

It is apparent that substantial effort went into preparing emissions inputs in order for the model to 

have been run, but this effort is little documented in the Plan. 

j. Air Quality Model Performance 

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

components of PM2.5, and PM precursors. Useful metrics include mean fractional bias and mean 

fractional error, normalized mean bias, and normalized mean error. Formulas for estimating 

these metrics are given in the Guidance. (Guidance, p. 203-204) Other statistics such as mean 

bias, mean error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients, etc. should also be calculated 

to the extent that they provide meaningful information. Since modeling for the PM2.5 NAAQS 

will likely require modeling different times of year, season-specific statistics and graphic 

displays are helpful for evaluating and diagnosing model performance. Statistics and graphics 

can be averaged for various time scales. For example, statistical metrics and scatter plots can 

show daily averaged ambient modeled pairs, monthly averaged pairs, quarterly (or seasonal 

averaged) pairs, or annual average pairs. Each of these averaging times can provide useful 

information. EPA recommends a range of different averaging times for annual or seasonal 

modeling. At a minimum, a state should examine daily averaged pairs and seasonal (or 

quarterly) averaged pairs. Because statistics and plots tend to look better as the averaging time 

increases from daily to monthly to quarterly to annual, daily pairs should always be examined to 

ensure a detailed look at model performance on the time scale of the FRM and STN 

measurements (24-hour average). Soccer plots provide a convenient way to display a summary 

of model performance (including bias and error at the same time). Bugle plots10 have variable 

bias and error goals, based on ambient concentrations. This allows for a higher percentage error 

and bias at very low concentrations. This recognizes the fact that models often have difficulty in 

accurately predicting near background concentrations and may be useful to prioritize 

examination of model performance within and near the non-attainment area(s) of interest. 

Additionally, priority may be placed on examination of the days that are potentially used in the 

attainment test (e.g., the days > 65 μg/m3 for 1997 24-hour PM2.5). 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s air quality model performance is discussed in the appendix “Regional 

Model Performance Analysis” (hereafter RMPA), starting at p. 6. 

The Plan does not include a discussion of the database used to evaluate model 

performance, other than many references to CRPAQS and referrals to the Central California Air 

Quality Studies’ website (http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways). (For example, “The CRPAQS main 

field program collected extensive data during the period of December 1999 to February 2001” 

(p. F-32)).” It is know from media accounts, CARB’s website, the District’s website ( 

http://www.valleyair.org/ ), and study reports and journal articles, that the study involved 

intensive metrological and air quality measurements, including measurements taken on towers 

and in aircraft and created a wealth of data useful for developing and evaluating model 

applications. 

The Plan contains no speciated 24-hour PM2.5 data. It contains only annual data and, in 

one case, monthly data (in Appendix H) are provided. 

Three types of information were used to evaluate model performance: maps with PM2.5 

spatial patterns, performance statistics at individual monitors, and time series plots. 

10 Fractional error and bias tend to be large at small concentrations, since then the uncertainty can be nearly 

as big as the concentration. Since fractional error varies relatively slowly with concentration, but then grows larger 

at low concentrations, the shape of the plot resembles a long tube with a flared end at low concentrations, 

reminiscent of a bugle. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Filled concentration contour plots of the modeling domain are shown in RMPA, pp. 7-11 

(figures 3 – 7), for annual PM2.5 and four quarterly averages. Each of these has seven plots, one 

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

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

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

temperature and humidity, although third quarter nitrates appear too high. Sulfates are low for 

all quarters, while organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) are higher in the first and 

fourth quarters, presumably due to enhanced wood burning during these periods. There is no 

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

expectations or to monitored values. 

Fourth Quarter Average Concentrations for PM2.5 

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Next the RMPA at pp. 12 - 14 discusses statistics for Mean Fractional Error (MFE) and 

Mean Fractional Bias (MFB), which are shown in the form of bugle plots. Each plot is for 

annual average PM2.5 total or a component, and shows MFE or MFB plotted against 

concentration. Performance criteria were set at MFE ≤ 75% and |MFB| ≤ 60%. The RMPA 

notes that the criteria are met for all species except dust, which is substantially overestimates for 

reasons that are not understood. Eight other statistics are mentioned in the modeling protocol, at 

p. F-62, such as Mean Normalized Gross Error, but no values are presented. 

Finally, time series plots are examined at RMPA pp. 14-16. Bakersfield and Fresno 

concentrations of PM2.5 total and components are plotted against day of the year-long simulation, 

with a fluctuating line showing model prediction, and individual dots showing monitored values. 

The RMPA notes that the over-predicted of nitrate in the third quarter is apparent, as is the 

overestimation of dust. EPA examination of the plots also suggests that many PM2.5 days are 

missed at both Bakersfield and Fresno, that organic carbon is under predicted (especially at 

Fresno), and that ammonium is under predicted. Sulfate is also often under predicted, but 

sulfates contribution to to PM2.5 levels in the Valley is small. Since the plots show the entire 

year, it is hard to judge performance during particular months or seasons. 

There are no actual numbers calculated for the performance statistics. There are no 

seasonal or episode statistics. 

There is no discussion of any sensitivity or diagnostic testing of the model, which could 

check whether it responds to input changes in a physically reasonable way, whether alternative 

input assumptions could have improved model performance, and whether the predictions are 

subject to compensating errors in the inputs. 

There is no qualitative assessment of whether the model is adequately capturing the 

various processes leading to high PM2.5 concentration and no assessment of spatial variation of 

model performance. 

EPA believes the air quality model performance is likely adequate but sparsely 

documented (the preceding excerpts are most of the description in the Plan). While it is apparent 

that substantial effort went into preparing the materials for model evaluation, the Plan has 

relatively little discussion of the evaluation results and none on sensitivity and diagnostic testing 

that could enhance confidence in the model. The level of documentation is far short of what 

would be expected b EPA Guidance. 

k. Modeled Attainment Test 

A modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality model is used to simulate 

current and future air quality. If future estimates PM2.5 concentrations are less than the NAAQS, 

then this element of the attainment test is satisfied. EPA’s recommended test is one in which 

model estimates are used in a relative rather than absolute sense. That is, we take the ratio of the 

model’s future to current (baseline) predictions at monitors. We call these ratios, relative 

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

multiplying a modeled relative response factor at locations near each monitor by the observationEPA- Region 9 Page 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

based, monitor-specific, baseline design value. The resulting predicted future concentrations are 

compared to NAAQS. 

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

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

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

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

passively collected mass. Note that FRM monitors do not measure the same components and do 

not retain all of the PM2.5 that is measured by routine speciation samplers and therefore cannot be 

directly compared to speciation measurements from the STN. By design, the FRM mass 

measurement does not retain all ammonium nitrate and other semi-volatile materials (negative 

sampling artifacts) and includes particle bound water associated with sulfates, nitrates and other 

hygroscopic species (positive sampling artifacts). This results in concentrations (and percent 

contributions to PM2.5 mass) which may be different than the ambient levels of some PM2.5 

chemical constituents. Therefore we recommend a SMAT technique which uses an FRM mass 

construction methodology which results in reduced nitrates (relative to the amount measured by 

routine speciation networks), higher mass associated with sulfates and nitrates (reflecting water 

included in gravimetric FRM measurements) and a measure of organic carbonaceous mass which 

is derived from the difference between measured PM2.5 and its non-organic carbon components. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

passed. Guidance, pp. 15-16. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s annual PM2.5 NAAQS attainment test is discussed in Chapter 3, pages 

3-20 and 2-33, and in Appendix G on “Regional Air Quality Modeling”. 

A variation on EPA’s SMAT approach is used, to account for the SJV’s abundance of 

ammonia and the dominance of ammonium nitrate over ammonium sulfate. This variation is to 

assume that ammonium on the monitor filter is the measured STN NH4 minus any losses 

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

filter. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. G-10. 

The 2006 design values and the results of the SMAT for 2014 baseline conditions and for 

the result of new emissions controls are shown in Chapter 3, Table 3-3 (p. 3-23) and Appendix 

G, Table 3 (p. G-21) of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The 2014 controlled design value is seen to be less 

than the annual NAAQS level of 15 μg/m3 for every monitor, thus demonstrating attainment. 

The highest 2014 value is 14.7 μg/m3 at the Bakersfield Planz Road monitor. The RRFs, and 

EPA- Region 9 Page 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

details of their calculation, are not presented. (However, an RRF for nitrate does appear in the 

various receptor modeling tables in the appendix “Receptor Modeling Documentation”, and 

corresponding values in Table 3-2, p. 3-22; it is not clear whether these RRFs are from the 

CMAQ modeling described above or from a different modeling exercise.) 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS attainment test is discussed in the same place 

as the attainment test for the annual standard, with results in Appendix G, Table 4, p. G-22. 

Appendix G, Table 4 shows the 2006 design values for Bakersfield and Fresno monitors 

and the projected 2014 design values for the controlled case. Since the 2006 design values are 

already below the 1997 24-hr NAAQS level of 65 μg/m3

, the controlled values are, too. The 

highest 2014 value is 46.2 μg/m3 at the Bakersfield California Avenue monitor. The Relative 

Reduction Factors, and details of their calculation, are not presented. 

The attainment tests appear to show attainment of both PM2.5 NAAQS. These tests, 

however, are not well documented. The Plan cites several factors as justifying a variation on 

EPA’s SMAT approach (e.g., the prevalence of ammonia, the dominance of ammonium nitrate, 

the effect of substantial controls on fugitive dust and direct carbon emissions (p. G-10 and p. 3­

20)) but does not provide sufficiently detailed explanations for these deviations. The Plan does 

not include the Relative Reduction Factors, the key results from the model for use in the 

attainment test, and details of their calculation. 

l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 

In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, EPA recommends use of an 

unmonitored area analysis. This type of analysis is intended to ensure that a control strategy 

leads to reductions in ozone or PM2.5 at other locations which could have baseline (and future) 

design values exceeding the NAAQS were a monitor deployed there. 

The unmonitored area analysis should identify areas where future year design values are 

predicted to be greater than the NAAQS. The unmonitored area analysis for a particular 

nonattainment area is intended to address potential problems within or near that nonattainment 

area. The analysis should include, at a minimum, all nonattainment counties and counties 

surrounding the nonattainment area (located within the state). In order to examine unmonitored 

areas in all portions of the domain, EPA recommends that a state use interpolated spatial fields 

of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. Guidance, p. 29. 

Gradient adjusted spatial fields are first created for the base year. Future year estimates 

can then be created by applying gridded RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. The basic 

steps are as follows (Guidance, p. 30): 

1) Interpolate base year ambient data to create a set of spatial fields. 

2) Adjust the spatial fields using gridded model output gradients (base year values). 

3) Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient adjusted spatial fields. 

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

form of a simple screening analysis, examination of a filled concentration contour plot (Figure 3 

on p. G-20), and the observation that “there are no areas with steep gradients that would result in 

higher design values than those measured at monitors”. 

The Plan does not contain an Unmonitored Area Analysis in the sense of the Guidance. 

EPA does not believe that the figure presented is an adequate substitute for an Unmonitored Area 

Analysis. 

m. Weight of Evidence 

States should perform complementary analyses of air quality, emissions and 

meteorological data and consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. 

Such analyses are instrumental in guiding the conduct of an air quality modeling application. 

The results of corroboratory analyses may sometimes be used in a weight of evidence 

determination to show that attainment is likely despite modeled results which may be 

inconclusive. The further the attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling contrary 

evidence produced by corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that 

implied by the modeled attainment test results. Guidance, p. 17. Supplemental analyses could 

include additional modeling using alternative models and inputs, modeling apportionment and 

process analysis tools, alternative metrics (such as change in the number of grid cells above the 

NAAQS), trends in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, receptor modeling, and indicator 

species approaches. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan’s weight of evidence determination is discussed in Appendix H. 

Supplemental analyses used in the weight of evidence determination are described in that 

Appendix and also in Chapter 3, Appendix F, and the appendix on “Receptor Modeling 

Documentation” (hereafter RMD). 

As mentioned near the start of this TSD section on modeling, the Plan emphasizes a 

receptor modeling-based approach for the attainment demonstration, with photochemical 

modeling added later. However, EPA views the receptor modeling mainly as a supplemental 

analysis to corroborate the photochemical modeling as part of the weight of evidence 

determination. 

Chapter 3 describes three variants of a speciated rollback approach (p. 3-23). Method 1 

is based on Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) modeling of PM10 speciated measurements from the 

year 2000; this was converted to 2005 PM2.5 values, which are in turn projected to 2014, with 

some adjustments described below. This method is applied to the Fresno, Kern, Kings, and 

Tulare County monitors. Method 2 is similar but is based on speciation data from the years 

2004-2006. This method is is applied to the Fresno and Kern monitors only. The third method is 

based on a Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) using speciated data from the years 2003-2006. 

This method iss applied to the Fresno and Kern monitors only. Thus Fresno and Kern County 

monitors have all three methods applied, Kings and Tulare Counties have only Method 1 applied. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table B-1 

Guidelines For Weight of Evidence Determinations 

Results of Modeled Attainment 

Test Supplemental Analyses 

Annual PM2.5 24-Hour PM2.5 

Future Design 

Value < 14.5 

μg/m3

, all monitor 

sites 

Future Design 

Value < 62 μg/m3 

, 

all monitor sites 

Basic supplemental analyses should be 

completed to confirm the outcome of the 

modeled attainment test 

Future Design 

Value 14.5-15.5 

μg/m3

, at one or 

more sites/grid 

cells 

Future Design 

Value 62-67 

μg/m3, at one or 

more sites/grid 

cells 

A weight of evidence demonstration should be 

conducted to determine if aggregate 

supplemental analyses support the modeled 

attainment test 

Future Design 

Value > 15.5 

μg/m3

, at one or 

more sites/grid 

cells 

Future Design 

Value > 68 μg/m3 

, 

at one or more 

sites/grid cells 

More qualitative results are less likely to support 

a conclusion differing from the outcome of the 

modeled attainment test. 

All three of these approaches included various adjustments, and projection to 2014 (and 

in some cases intermediate years). The adjustments included consideration of the emission 

inventory in order to attribute PM2.5 in a more refined way than the CMB and PMF approaches 

could by themselves, as the latter cannot always distinguish between different sources of a given 

chemical species. There is little text discussion in the Plan of how this refinement was done. 

Adjustments are also made considering the area of influence of each monitor in order to further 

refine which sources were relevant to particular monitors. There is no text definition of area of 

influence and no discussion of the procedure followed, other than a diagram and formula at 

RMD, p. 79, though the meaning of this diagram and formula is not clear. Another adjustment 

involved modeled sensitivity factors from CMAQ nitrate modeling (and linear nitrate projection 

and IMS95 modeling”) were used to estimate the response of the atmosphere to changes in NOx 

emissions. This was an attempt to address the inability of straight speciated rollback to handle 

secondary particulates, as they are not directly associated with emitted species from sources. It 

is not clear exactly to which modeling exercises these refer. In addition there is discussion of 

variations on SMAT (p. 3-21), involving “approved alternate linear assumptions” on trapped 

water bonded to ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate and other issues, but it is not clear 

how this was done. The execution of much of this is in the spreadsheet in RMD; however, there 

is very little documentation on the spreadsheet and its formulas. The results from all these 

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

“Receptor Modeled SMAT RRF 2005-2014” based on the methods just described, and a 

projected 2014 design value. For all counties the value is less than 15 μg/m3 the level of the 

annual NAAQS. The highest 2014 value is 14.09 μg/m3

, for Kern County based on the PMF 

method. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

EPA believes that the ideas used to refine the receptor modeling results are reasonable 

ways to address shortcomings of receptor modeling, especially for an area for which secondary 

particulates are so important. The results do support the attainment demonstration, and it is 

apparent that substantial thought and effort went into applying the methods. However, 

documentation for the approaches used is confusing, not well organized, and in some cases 

missing altogether. Without improved documentation, it is difficult to assess the strength of this 

supplemental analysis. 

Appendix H. “Weight of Evidence” describes several other supplemental analyses. 

These include tables (pp. H-5 - H-4), bar charts (p. H-5), a Theil regression trend test (p. H-5) 

and time series plots (p. H-6 and p. H-10), all showing a downward trend in 24-hour and annual 

PM2.5 concentrations. Monthly time series (pp. H-7 – H-8) comparing 2001 to 2006 for 

Bakersfield and Fresno show substantial decline in PM2.5 during the winter months (summers 

remained about the same). Histograms (p. H-9) comparing frequency distributions for various 

concentration ranges from the years 1999-2001 to those in 2004-2006 for Bakersfield and Fresno 

show decreases in the frequency of the highest concentrations. This decrease is clearest for 

Fresno, which also shows increased occurrence of low concentrations. (Mid-range 

concentrations, between 15 and 40 μg/m3 are more of a mixed picture.) Species and total PM2.5 

trends (pp. H-14 – H-15) also show declines over 2001-2006, principally in carbonaceous 

aerosols, but also in ammonium nitrate. The increased stringency of the Residential Wood 

Combustion Rule that was implemented in 2003 is cited as one of the causes of the decline (p. 

H-14). Further evidence of a downward trend in nitrate during 1987-2005 is shown in additional 

graphs (p. H-17). 

Emissions are also trending down, as seen in a 2001-2005 time series plot for emitted 

species, especially for NOx and for reactive organic gases. 

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

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

these two that forms ammonium nitrate PM2.5. Ammonia concentrations are almost always far 

higher than those of nitric acid, and also vary over a much larger range than nitric acid. This is 

evidence that nitric acid is the limiting precursor, with some implications for the advisability of 

controls of NOx emissions as opposed to ammonia. 

Finally, Appendix H (p. H-25) discusses the receptor modeling and photochemical 

modeling results already covered above. 

EPA believes that the supplemental analyses presented in Appendix H are useful in a 

weight of evidence, and support the demonstration of attainment. 

3. Conclusions 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan lacks or fails to adequately document several significant elements of 

a modeling demonstration including: a provision for access to the underlying modeling data, the 

sensitivity and diagnostic testing of the air quality model, a discussion of the relative reduction 

EPA- Region 9 Page 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

factors, and the unmonitored area analysis. Significant time, money, and effort by CARB, the 

District, and many others have gone into preparing the air quality modeling to support the 

attainment demonstration in SJV PM2.5 plan for the San Joaquin Valley, including the multimillion dollar CRPAQS study. While EPA believes that the modeling is essentially sound, the 

documentation provided in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is not sufficient for us to fully evaluate its 

adequacy. Although it is not necessary to provide comprehensive documentation on every issue 

addressed in a modeling analysis, the level of documentation in the Plan falls significantly short 

of what is necessary for a reliable attainment demonstration, as described in the Guidance. The 

lack of documentation, combined with the missing unmonitored area analysis, leaves EPA 

unable to propose to approve the Plan’s air quality modeling or to find it adequate to support the 

Plan’s attainment demonstration. We also cannot currently determine that it provides an adequate 

basis for the reasonably available control measures, reasonable further progress, and attainment 

demonstrations in the Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

C. PM2.5 Attainment Plan Precursors 

1. Requirements for the Control of PM2.5 Precursors 

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

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

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

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

concentrations of other gaseous reactive species; atmospheric conditions including solar 

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

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

EPA recognizes NOx, SO2, VOC, and ammonia as precursors of PM2.5 because these 

pollutants can contribute to the formation of PM2.5 in the ambient air. As discussed previously, 

states must include each in their submitted emissions inventory in order to assure the information 

on all pollutants and precursors that contribute to PM2.5 concentrations is available. 72 FR 20586 

at 20589 and 40 CFR § 51.1008(a)(1). However, the overall contribution of different precursors 

to PM2.5 formation, and the effectiveness of alternative potential control measures will vary by 

location. Thus the precursors a state should regulate for attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS will also 

vary to some extent from area to area. 72 FR 20586 at 20589. 

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

precursors must be controlled in each specific nonattainment area. See PM2.5 implementation 

rule at 20589. Instead, for reasons explained in the rule, a state must evaluate control measures 

for sources of SO2 in addition to sources of direct PM2.5 in all nonattainment areas. 40 CFR § 

51.1002(c) and (c)(1). A state must also evaluate control measures for sources of NOx unless the 

state and/or EPA determine that control of NOx emissions would not significantly reduce PM2.5 

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

determined in the PM2.5 implementation rule that states do not need to address controls for 

sources of VOC and ammonia unless the state and/or EPA make a technical demonstration that 

such controls would significantly contribute to reducing PM2.5 concentrations in the 

nonattainment area. 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3) and (4). Such a demonstration is required “if the 

administrative record related to development of its SIP shows that the presumption is not 

technically justified for that area.” 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(5). 

Significant contributor in this context means that a significant reduction in emissions of 

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

PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. PM2.5 implementation rule at 20590. Although 

EPA did not establish a quantitative test for determining the significance of such a change, EPA 

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

public health benefits. Id. 

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

VOC, or NH3 in any area could consider the emissions inventory, speciation data, modeling 

information, or other special studies such as such as monitoring of additional compounds, 

receptor modeling, or special monitoring studies. 72 FR 20586 at 20596-20597. These factors 

EPA- Region 9 Page 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

could indicate that the emissions or ambient concentration contribution of a precursor, or the 

sensitivity of ambient concentrations to changes in precursor emissions, differs in the specific 

nonattainment area from the presumption for that precursor in the PM2.5 implementation rule. 

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

EPA’s Evaluation 

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

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors as defined in 40 CFR § 51.1000. The Plan addresses only NOx 

and SO2 in the RFP and attainment demonstrations and the District’s RACM/RACT analysis and 

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

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

plan precursor and for the exclusion of ammonia. However, as discussed below, it does not fully 

evaluate the impact of controlling VOC as a precursor for PM2.5 attainment, even though other 

information in the Plan indicates that controlling VOC, in addition to SO2 and NOx, may 

contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

Precursor relationships are discussed in the Plan’s “Executive Summary”, Chapter 3 

“What is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment?”, Chapter 7 “Local, State, and Federal Controls”, 

Chapter 8 “Reasonable Further Progress”, Appendix F “SJV PM2.5 SIP Modeling Protocol”, 

Appendix G “Regional Air Quality Modeling”, Appendix J “Comments and Responses”, and the 

additional appendix “2014 Receptor Modeling Documentation” (“RMD”). The most detailed 

discussion is in Appendix F, p. F-53ff, with the main points repeated in Chapter 3, p. 3-8ff. The 

RMD presents additional evidence regarding precursors. 

As mentioned above, ambient contribution and ambient sensitivity to emissions changes 

may both be considered in determining whether the presumption for an attainment plan precursor 

should be reversed. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains numerous qualitative statements that San 

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

reductions are more effective at reducing ambient PM2.5 than reductions in the other precursors. 

Most of those statements are in Chapter 3 and Appendix F and are based on excerpts of findings 

from CRPAQS. Several of the excerpted and cited CRPAQS documents are available at 

CARB’s “Central California Air Quality Studies” web site at http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways. 

For ambient contributions of precursors to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the Plan contains 

qualitative descriptions but no quantitative data, although it does refer to “CRPAQS data for the 

year 2000... available at the ARB website http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways”. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 

F-59 

For the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the Plan contains some qualitative description 

of precursor ambient contribution. For example, it states on p. 2-8 that annual concentrations are 

driven by wintertime concentrations, and further, that the highest short term concentrations are 

driven by ammonium nitrate, as found in the CRPAQS: 

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

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

secondary NH4NO3.

11 

There is also quantitative data in Appendix G, Table 2. “Percent Composition Ratio 

Based on 2000 Average CRPAQS Data” (p. G-21,), using measurements from the Speciation 

Trends Network (STN). The RMD also has projected 2014 species composition in data tables (at 

RMD pp. 1 - 70).) and pie charts (at RMD pp. 71 -28), based on various adjustments to Chemical 

Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) modeling results Ammonium 

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

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

precursor that significantly contributes to annual PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

In addition to composition data, ambient sensitivity to emissions changes can also be a 

consideration in determining which species should be regulated in the SIP for an area as 

attainment plan precursors. For ammonium nitrate PM2.5, which is formed from both ammonia 

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

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

Particulate NH4NO3 concentrations are limited by the rate of HNO3 formation, 

rather than by the availability of NH3 

and 

“Comparisons of ammonia and nitric acid concentrations show that ammonia is 

far more abundant than nitric acid, which indicates that ammonium nitrate 

formation is limited by the availability of nitric acid, rather than ammonia.... 

This study's analyses suggest that reductions in NOx emissions will be more 

effective in reducing secondary ammonium nitrate aerosol concentrations than 

reductions in ammonia emissions. Reductions in VOC emissions will reduce 

secondary organic aerosol concentrations and may reduce ammonium nitrate.... 

The results indicate ammonium nitrate formation is ultimately controlled by NOx 

emission rates and the other species, including VOCs and background ozone, 

which control the rate of NOx oxidation in winter, rather than by ammonia 

emissions. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan p. 3-10. 

These findings are based on the relative amounts of ammonia and nitrate: there is so 

much ammonia present that even substantial reductions of ammonia emissions would still leave 

ample ammonia for forming ammonium nitrate. On the other hand, NOx is scarce (relative to 

ammonia), so reducing it will reduce ammonium nitrate significantly. 

11 Quote from “Initial Data Analysis of Field Program Measurements,” DRI Document No. 2497, July 29, 

2005; Judith C. Chow, L..W. Antony Chen, Douglas H. Lowenthal, Prakash Doraiswamy, Kihong Park, Steven D. 

Kohl, Dana L. Trimble, John G. Watson, Desert Research Institute. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Finally, sensitivity results from photochemical modeling was used in conjunction with 

the CMB results mentioned above, though it is not clear which particular modeling was used. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan states at p. 3-15: 

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

aerosol chemistry (UAM-AERO). This assessment used the IMS-95 dataset (an 

early component of CRPAQS) to evaluate a monitored event of nitrate particulate 

formation. Regional modeling was also conducted for the later 2000-2001 

CRPAQS data, providing an update to the PM10 receptor modeling projections in 

2006. A third round of regional modeling with the Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) model has been completed by CARB.... If this provides a 

different regional photochemistry analysis for nitrate formation, the receptor 

modeling estimates for nitrates will be reviewed. 

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

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

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

several seasons. For the annual concentration, the NOx reduction gave a predicted 5 μg/m3 PM2.5 

reduction, while for the winter episode the predicted reduction was 28 μg/m3 for the 24-hour 

period RMD, p. 80. A similar evaluation is also done for to analyze the effect of a 50 percent 

reduction in ammonia emissions: the corresponding PM2.5 predicted reductions for annual and 

winter were only 0.1 μg/m3 and 0.3 μg/m3

, respectively. See RMD, p. 81. When compared to 

the annual and 24-hour NAAQS of 15 and 65 μg/m3

, respectively, the effect of NOx reductions 

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

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

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

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

As to VOC, EPA presumption in the PM2.5 implementation rule is that VOC need not be 

an attainment plan precursor. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3). As explained in the preamble to the 

rule, however, this presumption may not be technically justified for a particular nonattainment 

area, i.e., this presumption may be incorrect where emissions of VOC significantly contribute to 

PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590-93, 20596-97. States or 

EPA may conduct a technical demonstration to reverse the presumptive exclusion of VOC as a 

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

scientific information. Id. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contains substantial information indicating that, for the SJV 

nonattainment area, VOC should be considered as a potential PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. 

On an annual basis, Table 2 in Appendix G (p. G-21,) gives an organic carbon range of 38-49 

percent of the total PM2.5. This organic PM2.5 can be further divided into vegetative burning (9­

19 percent of total annual PM2.5), direct VOC PM2.5 emissions (also 9-19 percent of total annual 

PM2.5), and secondary organic aerosols (2-5 percent of total annual PM2.5). RMD at 19. This 

SOA contribution to overall PM2.5 levels appears to be non-negligible. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

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

PM2.5. SOA is organic carbon particulate formed in the photochemical oxidation of 

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

efficient SOA producers contributing to this secondary particulate.” 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p.3-8. On 

a 24-hour episodic basis, the contribution of SOA could be higher than the annual 2-5 percent, 

though it is likely lower for the winter episodes of most concern in the SJV, due to decreased 

photochemical activity when fog and clouds partially block sunlight. The chemistry of SOA is 

less well understood than the chemistry of other chemical species, so overall these considerations 

are not enough to overcome the negative presumption for VOC. 

But as noted in the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule at pp. 20592 - 20593, the 

lightest organic molecules can participate in atmospheric chemistry processes resulting in the 

formation of ozone and certain free radical compounds (such as the hydroxyl radical [OH]) 

which in turn participate in oxidation reactions to form secondary organic aerosols, sulfates, and 

nitrates. That is, VOC may be a PM2.5 precursor not just via formation of SOA, but also via its 

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

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

before they form particulate ammonium nitrate. Two pathways for this to occur are 1) daytime 

oxidation by OH, which VOC radicals help create, and 2) nighttime oxidation by ozone, with 

N2O5 as an intermediary.12 

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

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

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

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

daytime photochemistry is VOC, sunlight, and background-ozone limited in winter.” Id. If 

nitrate formation is VOC-limited under some circumstances, then VOC emissions reductions 

could lead to ambient PM2.5 reductions. 

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

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

percent reduction in VOC emissions was predicted reductions in PM2.5 levels of 1.3 μg/m3 for on 

annual basis, and 8.7 μg/m3 for the (24-hour) winter episode. When compared to the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3 and the 1997 24-hour NAAQS of 65 μg/m3

, these projected 

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to comments on the VOC issue made during the District public comment 

period, the Plan stated: “ARB modeling has shown that VOC reductions are not as effective in 

reducing secondary PM2.5 as NOx or SO2 reductions,” and “[a]ll of the technical evaluations for 

CRPAQS and prior assessments of regional particulate models have indicated that NOx is the 

12 Lurmann, F. et. al., 2006, op cit., p. 1688. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

dominant factor and VOC and ammonia are not.” 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp.J-9 and p. J-19. These 

statements about the relative effectiveness of controlling VOC as compared to other precursors 

may be true, but they do not cite any particular modeling or technical evaluations, and they do 

not address the substantial information in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan indicating that VOC may 

contribute significantly to ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

presumption against VOC. Clearly they were not intended as such by the State, in view of 

various other statements in the Plan. Nevertheless, they are part of the administrative record 

related to development of the SIP, constitute evidence showing that the VOC presumption may 

not be technically justified, and indicate that the State should submit a demonstration to either 

support or reverse the presumption under the PM2.5 implementation rule that VOC is not an 

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

In the absence of a technical demonstration by the State, EPA reviewed the results of 

several modeling and monitoring studies of the San Joaquin Valley. Some of these documents 

are available on the “Central California Air Quality Studies” web site at www.arb.ca.gov/airways 

and/or are cited in the Plan and are reports from contractors involved in CRPAQS. Others are 

papers from peer-reviewed journals and are analyses using CRPAQS data or data from the earlier 

IMS95 study. Four monitoring studies and six modeling studies were found to be relevant to the 

VOC precursor issue and are discussed further below. The monitoring studies all contain 

evidence that the VOC pathway for nitrate creation is important at least some of the time but 

differ on the how important it is relative to other pathways such as the nighttime ozone pathway, 

and are not conclusive on the efficacy of VOC controls. Unlike the monitoring studies, most of 

the modeling studies explicitly assessed the relative effectiveness of precursor controls. 

The monitoring studies examined time series of various pollutants annually and during 

severe winter PM2.5 episodes. The monitoring studies were not all aimed at assessing the relative 

effectiveness of precursor controls, and insofar as they addressed that issue, they focused more 

on the relative importance of ammonia and NOx controls, rather than on VOC versus. NOx 

controls. They nevertheless do contain some tentative conclusions about VOC. The monitored 

relative abundances of precursors and other intermediate chemical species can yield information 

on the chemical processes occurring and their relative importance. For example, nitrate 

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

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

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

of VOC-limited OH and nitrate formation relative to VOC-abundant conditions (Pun, 1998). 

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

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

EPA- Region 9 Page 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

photochemistry (Pun, 2004). That correspondence though could also be partly explained by 

ozone transport or by daytime entrainment of nighttime nitrate formed aloft (Lurmann et. al., 

2006). The monitoring studies provide evidence that VOC-limited processes contribute to PM2.5 

formation, but are not conclusive on the efficacy of VOC controls. 

By contrast, most of the six relevant modeling studies did explicitly assess the relative 

effectiveness of precursor controls, though again they tended to emphasize ammonia more than 

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

most important oxidant, implying that VOC control would have little effect (Ying et. al., 2009). 

The other five studies explicitly evaluated precursor controls, simulating the PM2.5 effect of 50 

percent reductions in emissions of NOx, ammonia, and VOC. The two earliest of these studies 

used photochemical box models; one found VOC control to be ineffective (Stockwell, 2000), 

while the other found it effective (Pun and Seigneur, 2001). The later three studies used more 

sophisticated photochemical grid models, and found VOC control to be effective, though 

generally less so than NOx control. One study predicted VOC control to be about 2/3 as effective 

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

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

second study predicted VOC control to be effective, though only by a relatively small amount, at 

most 10%, or just for certain days (Pun, Balmori, and Seigneur, 2009). The third grid modeling 

study predicted VOC control to give slightly more benefit than NOx control (23 percent for VOC 

vs. 21 percent for NOx) (Livingstone et. al., 2009). While the models, assumptions, input data, 

and results differed between these studies, they provide ample evidence that control of VOC can 

significantly reduce ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Table C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings 

on VOC as a Precursor 

Study and Basis Quotes from Study 

Pun and Seigneur, 

1998 

monitored IMS95 data 

p. E-3 

Since only a small fraction of NOx is converted to HNO3... it was 

possible that the oxidation system was limited by the availability of 

oxidants. During wintertime, these oxidants may be sensitive to 

VOC rather than NOx. However, these inferences need to be 

confirmed. 

p. E-4 

However, further research is needed to understand the production of 

oxidants during the fall season and to assess the sensitivity of 

oxidants and HNO3 to VOC and NOx precursors. 

p. 3-14 

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

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

preliminary... 

EPA- Region 9 Page 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings 

on VOC as a Precursor 

Study and Basis Quotes from Study 

Stockwell et al., 2000 p. 4715 

decreases in the VOC emission rate have little effect 

box model using 1997 

emissions 

Pun and Seigneur, 

2001 

box model on 3-day 

IMS95 episode, 

4-6 January 1996 

p. 2979 

The concentration of particulate matter (PM) nitrate was found to be 

sensitive to reductions in VOC emissions. ... Oxidant chemistry in 

wintertime conditions in the San Joaquin Valley was shown to be 

VOC-sensitive. 

p. 2984 

the production of secondary PM is greatly reduced when the VOC 

emissions are halved... 

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

concentrations by as much as 20%. The resulting N2O5 

concentrations are more than proportionately reduced, and 

consequently, the rate of HNO3 production by this pathway is 

considerably reduced. 

p. 2987 

Our box model simulations point to the fact that PM formation in 

the SJV during winter is HNO3-sensitive, that HNO3 formation is 

oxidant-sensitive, and that oxidant formation is sensitive to 

reductions in VOC emissions. 

Pun, 2004 

monitored CRPAQS 

data 

p. 2 

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

[rural] Angiola because daily peak concentrations for both species 

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

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

and Bakersfield] show a phase difference between these two 

pollutants. 

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

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

nitrate concentrations. Since daytime conditions are comparatively 

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

concentrations during the 1 to 4 p.m. period are strongly indicative 

of a daytime chemical process occurring at this site. 

The difference in the nitrate diurnal profiles in Angiola and at the 

EPA- Region 9 Page 54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings 

on VOC as a Precursor 

Study and Basis Quotes from Study 

urban sites indicates that the dominant processes contributing to the 

observed surface nitrate concentrations may be different at urban 

and rural sites. Transport from aloft was assumed by Watson and 

Chow (2004) to account for a morning increase in nitrate 

concentrations at the Fresno supersite. 

p. 31 

There is some evidence that chemical production of nitrate occurs at 

the surface during the day. It is postulated that the daytime chemical 

process for the production of nitrate involves OH radicals or nitrate 

radicals, if it persists due to slower photolysis during the wintertime. 

Reliable measurements of NO2 and HNO3 and additional 

measurements of nitrate radicals may be needed to evaluate the 

feasibility of the nitrate reaction. 

Kleeman, Ying, and p. 5325 

Kaduwela, 2005 A 50% reduction in NOx emissions applied to sources within the 

SJV reduced the predicted concentration of total nitrate by 

UCD/CIT model on 3­ approximately 25% during the study episode.... A 50% reduction in 

day IMS95 episode, VOC emissions lowered predicted concentrations of total nitrate by 

4-6 January 1996 17.5%, while a 50% reduction in NH3 emissions lowered predicted 

concentrations of total nitrate by only 10%. 

p. 5332 

at Fresno... VOC controls actually increase the amount of particulate 

nitrate produced by upwind sources under the conditions 

experienced on 6 January, 1996. 

p. 5332 

at Kern Wildlife Refuge... The total concentration of nitrate 

increases slightly as VOC is scaled downward and then decreases 

with greater VOC reduction. ... A 50% reduction in VOC 

concentrations at Kern Wildlife Refuge leads to a predicted decrease 

in particulate nitrate concentrations of approximately 25–30% 

pp.5336-5338 

a 50% reduction in NOx emissions reduces maximum particulate 

nitrate concentrations by approximately 12 μg/m3 ...VOC and NH3 

emissions controls are not as effective as NOx controls for 

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

ground level particulate nitrate concentrations by only 7 μg/m3

... a 

50% NH3 emissions reduction reduces ground level particulate 

EPA- Region 9 Page 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings 

on VOC as a Precursor 

Study and Basis Quotes from Study 

nitrate concentrations by only 4 μg/m3 

McCarthy, 2005 

monitored CRPAQS 

data 

p. 18 

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

background ozone 

Nighttime HNO3 production is limited by background ozone which 

is abundant aloft but not at the surface 

Lurmann et al., 2006 

monitored CRPAQS 

data 

p. 1679 

[“implications” sidebar] 

Reductions in VOC emissions will reduce secondary organic aerosol 

concentrations and most likely contribute to reductions in 

ammonium nitrate concentrations. 

p. 1688 

The results indicate that ammonium nitrate formation is controlled 

by the formation of nitric acid and, therefore, ultimately controlled 

by NOx and VOC emission rates and background O3 concentrations 

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

assess the relative benefits of controlling NOx or VOC emissions for 

reducing nitric acid levels. 

p. 1689 

The average diurnal pattern of nitrate at Sierra Nevada Foothills is 

one that could be expected from photochemical activity, yet the 

afternoon nitrate peak at this site is more likely because of transport 

of pollution from the SJV than photochemistry. The average diurnal 

pattern for the three core sites in the SJV (Fresno, Bakersfield, and 

Angiola) suggests that the daytime nitric acid production is 

relatively slow. 

p. 1690 

Valley-wide nighttime production of ammonium nitrate aloft 

followed by daytime entrainment into the surface layer could 

explain the spatial homogeneity of wintertime ammonium nitrate 

levels in the SJV 

p. 1690 

Continuous aerosol nitrate data, in conjunction with NO and O3 

data, suggest that both daytime and nighttime nitric acid formation 

pathways are active in the SJV. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings 

on VOC as a Precursor 

Study and Basis Quotes from Study 

pp. 1690-1691 

The CRPAQS data examined here tend to support the valley-wide 

nighttime production aloft hypothesis. 

p. 1692 

Estimated secondary organic aerosol concentrations are small 

compared with concentrations of likely VOC precursors; however, 

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

significant in several locations. 

Pun, Balmori, and 

Seigneur, 2009 

CMAQ–MADRID 

model on 1-week 

CRPAQS episode, 

25-31 December 2000 

p. 402 

Nitrate was only weakly sensitive to reductions in anthropogenic 

VOC emissions. 

p. 402 

A control strategy that focuses on NOx and PM emissions would be 

effective on average, but reductions in VOC and NH3 emissions 

would also be beneficial for certain times and locations. 

p.405 

Reductions in anthropogenic VOC led to decreased O3 

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

virtually no effect on OM 

p. 408 

The reduction in NOx emissions by 50% induced a strong response 

in nitrate concentrations. At the rural site, nitrate reductions 

approached 50% on average, and the time series in Fig. 2 shows a 

consistent decrease throughout the episode. At Bakersfield, 

reductions were of the order of 30–45% and were less than linear. 

p. 408 

As discussed previously, the reduction of anthropogenic VOC 

emissions reduced O3 concentrations in both urban and rural 

locations. However, nitrate concentrations were less sensitive to 

anthropogenic VOC emissions than to NOx emissions on average. 

Reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions consistently caused 

small reductions in nitrate in the urban areas, even when nitrate 

increases resulted from reductions in NOx emissions. Rural nitrate 

concentrations were quite insensitive to anthropogenic VOC 

EPA- Region 9 Page 57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table C-1 

San Joaquin Valley Modeling and Monitoring Study Findings 

on VOC as a Precursor 

Study and Basis Quotes from Study 

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

PM2.5 peaks at Angiola and Bakersfield.] 

p. 408 

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

comprehensive in time and location may require controls of multiple 

precursors rather than a single key precursor. 

Ying, Lu, and p. 424 

Kleeman, 2009 The NOx is not immediately transformed into nitric acid/NH3 nitrate 

due to slow photochemical reactions in the winter. Background 

UCD/CIT model on 3­ ozone is the most important oxidant for reactive nitrogen with 

week CRPAQS gradual conversion of NOx to particulate nitrate over several days. 

episode, 

15 December 2000 to 

7 January 2001 

Livingstone et. al. , 

2009 

CMAQ model on 3­

week CRPAQS 

episode, 

17 December 2000 to 

7 January 2001 

p. 5971 

We found that emission reductions of NOx and AVOC 

[anthropogenic VOC] showed similar effects on percentage basis in 

different areas, and both are more effective than reducing NH3 for 

abating elevated concentrations of accumulation mode PM in 

California Central Valley during the winter episode. 

p. 5971 

[excerpt from] Table 1. Model results for ammonium nitrate at a 

Bakersfield station. Sensitivity of two-week average (ammonium + 

nitrate) to precursor reductions 

[precursor] [response] 

-50% NOx -21% PM2.5 

-50% AVOC -23% PM2.5 

-50% NH3 -8.8% PM2.5 

p. 5976 

The fine aerosol concentration was more sensitive to AVOC than 

NOx in small areas around a Bakersfield station with high 

concentrations of accumulation mode PM 

Notes: CRPAQS and IMS95 are described on the Central California Air Quality Studies web site,
 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/crpaqs/publications.htm
 

CPAQS is the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study, a field study conducted from December 1999
 

through February 2001.
 

IMS95 is the 1995 Integrated Monitoring Study, a field study that included a four week winter sampling program in
 

December 1995 and early January 1996.
 

EPA- Region 9 Page 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Central California Air Quality Studies web site, CRPAQS Documents and Publications page:
 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/crpaqs/publications.htm
 

Studies cited in table are:
 

Kleeman, M.K., Ying, Q., and Kaduwela, A., 2005, “Control strategies for the reduction of airborne particulate 

nitrate in California's San Joaquin Valley”, Atmospheric Environment, 39: 5325-5341 September 2005. 

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.05.044 

Livingstone, P.L., et. al., 2009, “Simulating PM Concentrations During a Winter Episode in a Subtropical Valley 

and Sensitivity Simulations and Evaluation methods”, Atmospheric Environment, 43: 5971-5977. 

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.07.033 

Lurmann, F.W., Brown, S.G., McCarthy, M.C., and Roberts P.T., 2006, “Processes Influencing Secondary Aerosol 

Formation in the San Joaquin Valley During Winter”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management 

Association, 56: 1679-1693. 

McCarthy, M., 2005, “The Role of Nighttime Chemistry in Winter Ammonium Nitrate Formation in the San 

Joaquin Valley”, presented at the American Association for Aerosol Research (AAAR), Supersites 

Conference, February 2005, Atlanta, GA. Available on CRPAQS web page listed above; direct link: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/Documents/AAAR/2005/mccarthy_nitrate_present.pdf 

Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 1998, “Conceptual Model of Particulate Matter Pollution in the California San Joaquin 

Valley”, prepared by Atmospheric and Environmental Research for Pacific Gas & Electric, Document 

Number CP045-1-98, 8 September 1998. Available on CRPAQS web page listed above; direct link: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/Documents/reports/sjvpmc~1.pdf 

Pun, B.K. and Seigneur, C., 2001, “Sensitivity of Particulate Matter Nitrate Formation to Precursor Emissions in the 

California San Joaquin Valley”, Environmental Science and Technology, 35: 2979-2987. doi: 

10.1021/es0018973 

Pun, B., 2004, “CRPAQS Task 2.7 When and Where Does High O3 Correspond to High PM2.5? How Much PM2.5 

Corresponds to Photochemical End Products?”, prepared by Atmospheric and Environmental Research, 

Inc. for the San Joaquin Valleywide Air Pollution Study Agency. Available on CRPAQS web page listed 

above; direct link: http://www.arb.ca.gov/airways/crpaqs/workshop/AER2.pdf 

Pun, B.K., Balmori R.T.F, and Seigneur, C., 2009, “Modeling Wintertime Particulate Matter Formation in Central 

California”, Atmospheric Environment, 43: 402-409. doi: doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.040 

Stockwell, W.R., Watson, J.G., Robinson, N.F., Steiner, W., and Sylte, W.W., 2000, “The Ammonium Nitrate 

Particle Equivalent of NOx Emissions for Continental Wintertime Conditions”, Atmospheric Environment, 

34: 4711-4717. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00148-5 

Ying, Q., Lu, J., and Kleeman, M., 2009, “Modeling air quality during the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air 

Quality Study (CPRAQS) using the UCD/CIT source-oriented air quality model - Part III. Regional source 

apportionment of secondary and total airborne particulate matter”, Atmospheric Environment, 43: 419-430, 

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

3. Conclusions 

EPA proposes to concur with the evaluation in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan that, at this time, 

ammonia does not need to be considered an attainment plan precursor for purposes of attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. However, because the Plan contains substantial information indicating 

that VOC significantly contributes to PM2.5 concentrations in the SJV, EPA is proposing to find 

EPA- Region 9 Page 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

that VOC is a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor under 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3) and thus must be 

evaluated for emissions reductions measures. 13 

It should be noted that EPA’s concurrence on excluding ammonia as an attainment plan 

precursor is limited to the attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 

standard in 2006 to lower it to 35 μg/m3 and is currently reviewing both the annual and 24-hour 

standards to determine if they should be further lowered to protect public health. See EPA, 

Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter NAAQS, Second External Review 

Draft, June 2010. Evaluation of ammonia controls for the attainment of the 2006 standard and 

any future lower standards may show that such controls would significantly contribute to lower 

PM2.5 levels in the Valley. 

13 In its approval of the SJV 2003 PM10 plan, EPA determined that for the purposes of section 189(b)(1)(B) 

and (e) and in the absence of final data from CRPAQS, VOC does not contribute significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standards in the SJV. See 69 FR 30006, 30011 (May 26, 2004). In that determination, EPA relied on the 

criteria that VOC control was not shown to be absolutely necessary for PM10 attainment and that it had a lower 

effectiveness than NOx control in reduction PM10. In addition, EPA noted in its 2004 final rule the District’s 

intention to re-examine the VOC issue when CRPAQS results were available. 69 FR 30010. 

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

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

of the precursor would be projected to provide a significant change in PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment 

area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20590 and 40 CFR § 51.1000. This is a different criterion than the one relied on in the 

2004 determination. Data and analyses from CRPAQS have also become available. These developments since 2004 

support a finding different from our 2004 one. 

We also note that the 2004 finding was made for the PM10 standards rather than the PM2.5 standards. The 

levels of the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 NAAQS (65 μg/m3 and 15 μg/m3

) are much lower than those for the 24-hour 

and (revoked) annual PM10 standards (150 μg/m3 and 50 μg/m3

). A given concentration change is therefore likely to 

be more significant for the PM2.5 standards than for the PM10 standards. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures/Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

1. Requirements for RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan “provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable 

(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained 

through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology [RACT]), and 

shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” 

We interpret reasonably available control measures (RACM) in these provisions as 

referring to measures of any type that may be applicable to a wide range of sources, whereas the 

parenthetical reference to reasonably available control technology (RACT) refers to measures 

applicable to stationary sources. Thus, RACT is a type of RACM specifically designed for 

stationary sources. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. 

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, onroad and non-road emission source categories that meets the following criteria: the control 

measure is (1) technologically feasible, (2) economically feasible, (3) does not cause “substantial 

widespread and long-term adverse impacts,” (4) is not “absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable,” 

and (5) collectively can advance the attainment date by at least one year. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. 

We define RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular stationary source is capable 

of meeting by the application of technology (i.e., devices, systems, process modifications, or 

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

technological and economic feasibility. 72 FR 20586 at 20610. 

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

under subpart 1 of Part D of the CAA. Under this approach, RACM/RACT are measures that a 

state finds are both reasonably available and contribute to attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable in its nonattainment area. Thus, what constitutes RACM/RACT in a PM2.5 

attainment plan is closely tied to that plan’s expeditious attainment demonstration. 40 CFR § 

51.1010; 74 FR 20586 at 20612. By definition, measures that are neither necessary for meeting 

the RFP requirement nor helping an area attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable are 

not required RACM/RACT. A state’s attainment plan must include a list of measures considered 

and information sufficient to show that a state has met all requirements for determination of 

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

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. 

Under this combined approach, EPA considers RACT be part of an area's overall RACM 

obligation. Subpart 1, unlike subparts 2 and 4 of title 1, Part D of the CAA, does not identify 

specific source categories for which EPA must issue control technology documents or guidelines 

or identify specific source categories for state evaluation during attainment plan development. 72 

FR 20586 at 20610. Because of the variable nature of the PM2.5 problem between nonattainment 

areas, which may require states to develop attainment plans that address widely disparate 

circumstances, EPA determined that a state should have flexibility with respect to RACT and 

EPA- Region 9 Page 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

RACM controls but also that in areas needing significant emissions reductions to attain the 

standards, RACT/RACM controls on smaller sources may be necessary to reach attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable. 72 FR 20586 at 20612, 20615 

The determination of RACM/RACT is a three-step process: (1) identifying 

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

conducting air-quality modeling and related analyses, and (3) selecting RACM/RACT. 72 FR 

20586 at 20613. Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements which are not 

already either federally promulgated, part of the state’s SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must 

be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state’s attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 20586 at 

20614. 

The first step, identification of potential measures, should be based on an inventory of 

emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors from the range of relevant 

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

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

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

its area. 72 FR 20586 at 20613. Significantly contribute in this context means that a significant 

change in emissions of the precursor from sources in the area would be projected to provide a 

significant change in PM2.5 concentrations in the area. 72 FR 20586 at 20590. 

In the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule, EPA provided a recommended list of 

the types of source categories and control measures that may be appropriate for evaluation given 

the local source mix and attainment needs of a specific area. 72 FR 20586 at 20621. 

Technological feasibility refers to whether there are available measures capable of 

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

this analysis, such as process and operating conditions, raw materials, physical plant layout, nonair quality and energy impacts, and the time needed to install and operate controls. 72 FR 20586 

at 20618. 

Economic feasibility refers to whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the source 

or source category. A number of factors are considered in this analysis, such as cost per ton of 

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

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

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy are the latest in a series of air quality 

plans that the District and CARB have developed to provide for attainment of the federal air 

quality standards in the SJV14 . These planning efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of 

rules and programs that address the vast majority of emissions sources in the Valley. Many of 

these District and State rules are among the most stringent in the nation. 

14 These plans include the 2003 PM10 Plan (approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)), the 2004 Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), and 2007 Ozone Plan (submitted November 16, 

2007). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB, and the local 

agencies (through the SJV’s eight metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)) each undertook a 

process to identify and evaluate potential reasonably available control measures that could 

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

agency’s efforts below. 

a.	 District RACM/RACT Analysis 

The District’s RACM/RACT analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and 

Appendix I of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The analysis focused on controls for the categories of 

stationary and area sources under the District’s direct jurisdiction. 

To identify potential RACM/RACT, the District reviewed potential measures from a 

number of sources including but not limited to: 

•	 EPA’s list of potential PM2.5 control measures (in the PM2.5 implementation rule
 

preamble);
 

•	 control strategies and measures from other districts and agencies, including the South 

Coast AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, and Ventura County 

APCD; 

•	 further study measures in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan; 

•	 measures suggested by the public including those recommended by the International 

Sustainable Systems Research Center (ISSRC) in its draft document “Clearing the Air: A 

Path to Clean Air by 2017,” dated August 2007; 

•	 recommendations from CARB’s 2003 audit of the District; and 

•	 recommendations from the 2007 CARB staff report, “Accelerating Attainment in the San 

Joaquin Valley” November 6, 2007. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6-6 to 6-8. 

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

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

NOx and SO2. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-8 and Appendix I. Potential RACM/RACT controls for 

VOC or ammonia were not specifically identified or evaluated. From this set of potential 

controls, the District developed a Stationary Source Regulatory Implementation Schedule (2008 

PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-2) which gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of 

the selected RACM/RACT measures. See also Table F-1 of this TSD. The schedule was 

developed based on a variety of factors, including: 

•	 technological feasibility and practicality of emission controls; 

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

possible to determine); 

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

profitability); 

•	 District authority and enforceability of emissions reductions; 

•	 rate and timing of emissions reductions; 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

• public acceptability, including interests and concerns of community members; 

• pollutants reduced – NOx, PM2.5, VOC, SO2, or multiple pollutants; 

• any potential adverse environmental impacts; and. 

• potential for disparate environmental impacts (environmental justice). 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-7. 

The District also identified a number of source categories for which feasibility studies to 

refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls would be done. These categories and the 

schedule for studying them are given in Table 6-4 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and Table F-6 of this 

TSD. 

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

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

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, pp. 6-13 to 6-23. 

b. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis 

The local jurisdictions’ RACM/RACT analysis was conducted by the SJV’s eight 

MPOs.15 This analysis, which focused on potential NOx emissions reductions from 

transportation control measures (TCM) and builds on the work done for the SJV 2007 Ozone 

Plan. TCMs are generally measures designed to reduce emissions from on-road motor vehicles 

through reductions in vehicle miles traveled or traffic congestion. The results of the MPOs’ 

analysis are described in Chapter 7 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

preamble. The evaluation is documented in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on pp. 7-8 to 7-11 and included 

the following steps: 

Step 1: Identification of potential new measures: The MPOs reviewed the measures in 

the 2007 Ozone Plan, EPA’s draft list of PM2.5 measures (see 72 FR 20586 at 20621), and other 

SIPs including the South Coast 2007 AQMP and the New Jersey 2007 SIP. No new measures 

were identified that had not already been considered in the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

15 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin 

Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association of Governments, 

the Madera County Transportation Commission, the Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County 

Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and the Kern Council of Governments. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Step 2: Calculation of the possible emissions reductions from potential TCM: Given the 

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

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

reductions of direct PM2.5, SO2, VOC, or ammonia. 

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

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

implementing all of these TCMs is approximately 7 tons per day (tpd) in 2020 and 5 tpd in 2023. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-10. These estimates are based on the maximum travel reductions that 

could be expected from the applicable measures and the average gram/mile emission rate of 

light-duty vehicles (i.e., passenger cars and light-duty trucks) operated during the summer. 

These summer time estimates for NOx reductions for 2020 and 2023 needed to be 

adjusted to reflect 2013/2014. Due to the benefits of fleet turnover and increasingly stringent 

motor vehicle emission standards, the fleet average emission rates in 2020 and 2023 are 

projected to be lower than those in 2013/2014. This means the NOx reductions estimated in 2020 

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

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

reductions are estimated to produce a reduction of roughly 14 tpd in 2013 (assuming the same 

level of travel reductions apply in 2013 as did in 2020 and 2023). Unlike ozone levels which are 

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

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

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

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

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

p. 7-10. 

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

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

9-1 from the draft PM2.5 plan, it was estimated that an additional 93.116 tons per average annual 

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

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

reductions from TCM. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-11. 

Based on the above analysis, the MPOs determined that there were no additional local 

RACM, beyond those measures already adopted, that would advance attainment of the PM2.5 

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

Plan, p. 7-11. 

The eight MPOs did adopt a CMAQ policy that includes developing a standardized 

process across the Valley for distributing, beginning in FY2011, 20 percent of the CMAQ funds 

to projects that meet a minimum cost-effectiveness. This policy focuses on achieving the most 

16 Calculated as the 2013 controlled level of emissions (394.3 tpd) minus the attainment level (291.2 tpd). 

Values from 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 9-1. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

cost-effective emissions reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs. 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, p. 7-8. 

c. State’s RACM Analysis 

CARB describes its proposed strategy to reduce emissions from sources within its 

jurisdiction – on- and off-road engines and vehicles, fuels, and consumer products –- in Chapter 

3 of the 2007 State Strategy. California has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards 

for most categories of on- and off-road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances only to a 

waiver by EPA under CAA section 209. 

CARB developed its proposed statewide strategy after an extensive public consultation 

process to identify potential SIP measures. This process is described in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 

p.7-11. It included a SIP Symposium in October 2006 and a workshop in November 2006 to 

discuss development of potential control concepts for meeting the federal 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 standards.17 CARB made available a draft of the 2007 State Strategy for public review in 

April 2007 and then conducted a series of public workshops on the draft. On April 26, 2007, 

CARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes 

based on further staff analysis and public comments. CARB Resolution 07-28, p. 3. 

From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 15 new defined measures. 

2007 State Strategy, p. 65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures 

focus on cleaning up the in-use (legacy) fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emissions 

standards for a number of engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle fuels and 

consumer products. Many, if not most of these measures, are being proposed and adopted for the 

first time anywhere in the nation. They build on CARB’s already comprehensive program to 

address emissions of direct PM2.5, NOx, and VOC from all types of mobile sources, through both 

regulations and incentive programs, as well as from fuels and consumer products. See 2007 

State Strategy, p. 38. Table D-1 lists these measures and includes one additional measure each 

from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. 

17 More information on this public process including presentations from the workshops and symposium 

that proceeded adoption of the 2007 State Strategy can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/ 

2007sip.htm. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table D-1 

2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration 

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Year 

Smog Check Improvements 2007-2008 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2008-2014 

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007-2008 

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2007 

Engines: 2009 

Port Truck Modernization 2007-2008 

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007-2008 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2007 

Clearer In-Use Agricultural Equipment 2009 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats 2009-2010 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions 

Standards By 2010 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage 

Tanks 2007 

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2007-2008 & 2010-2012 

Department of Pesticides Pesticide Regulation 2008 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

As described in section II. C. of this TSD, EPA has preliminarily determined that VOC is 

a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, a state must address all 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors in its RACM/RACT analysis. See 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)(3). 

Neither the District or the local jurisdictions (through the MPOs) evaluated RACM/RACT for 

VOC for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, RACM/RACT are the set of measures necessary 

for expeditious attainment. The measures must address emissions of PM2.5 and all PM2.5 

attainment plan precursors that are necessary for such expeditious attainment. Thus, in order for 

a PM2.5 plan to demonstrate that it provides for RACM/RACT, it must also demonstrate that it 

provides for expeditious attainment. 72 FR 20586 at 20612-20623. 

As discussed in Section II.B. of this TSD, we are proposing to disapprove the air quality 

modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 plan because there is insufficient documentation for us to determine 

its adequacy. Air quality modeling establishes the level of emissions reductions needed for 

attainment in an area. Thus, the uncertainties about the adequacy of the air quality modeling 

result in uncertainties about the emissions reductions needed for attainment. Without a reliable 

estimate of the emissions reductions needed for attainment, we are unable to determine if the 

measures selected for the SJV PM2.5 Plan are the set of RACM/RACT that will provide for 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as expeditiously as practicable. 

Therefore, for this reason and the lack of RACM/RACT analysis for VOC, EPA is 

proposing to find that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, together with the revised 2007 State Strategy, does 

not provide for the implementation of RACM/RACT for PM2.5 attainment in the San Joaquin 

Valley as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.1010 and to disapprove the SJV 

PM2.5 SIP’s RACM/RACT demonstration. 

It appears, however, that the State, District, and local jurisdictions have identified and 

otherwise provided for the implementation of a comprehensive set of measures that are among 

the most stringent in the nation18 and should the District and State correct the deficiencies in the 

attainment demonstration and appropriately address VOC as an attainment plan precursor in its 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the PM2.5 Plan, we would be able to approve the SIP’s 

RACM/RACT demonstration. 

As discussed in section I.A.2.b., EPA received a petition for reconsideration of several 

provisions in the PM2.5 implementation rule including three provisions related to RACT. We 

describe each below and whether the provisions affects our proposed action on the 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan: 

1. The presumption that compliance with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) satisfies the NOx 

and SO2 RACT requirements for electric generating units. 72 FR 20586 at 20623-28. 

The SJV nonattainment area was not subject to the CAIR which was intended to control 

the interstate transport of pollutants in the eastern United States. See 70 FR 25162 (May 

12, 2005).19 

18 SJVAPCD has adopted numerous rules to regulated stationary and area sources of VOC as part of its 

program to attain the ozone NAAQS. See Appendix B of this TSD. 

19 EPA has recently proposed a replacement rule for CAIR in response to the remand of the rule by the 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010). For more information, please see 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/ index.html. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

2. The allowance for states to defer establishing emission limits for condensable PM (CPM) 

until January 1, 2011. 72 FR 20586 at 20652 (codified at 40 CFR § 51.1002(c)). 

SJVAPCD did not explicitly address CPM in its RACT evaluation. The District, 

however, has addressed CPM in Rule 4352 Glass Melting Furnaces (section 5.4). EPA 

will evaluate any rule adopted or revised after January 1, 2011 to assure that it 

appropriately addresses CPM. 

3. The revisions to the criteria for analyzing the economic feasibility of RACT from a 

presumption that a given source must bear a cost similar to other sources to a consideration of 

whether the cost of a measure is reasonable for the regulated entity to bear, in light of benefits. 

72 FR 20586 at 20619-20620. 

While the 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes some discussion of criteria for economic feasibility 

that seem to reflect the revised criteria in the PM2.5 implementation rule (see pp. 6-2 and 

6-7), we can find no example of where those criteria actually resulted in the rejection of a 

potential RACT measure. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

E. Attainment Date Extension 

1. Requirements for Attainment Date Extensions 

CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) states that an area’s attainment date “shall be the date by 

which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from 

the date such area was designated nonattainment..., except that the Administrator may extend the 

attainment date to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater 

than 10 years from the date of designation as nonattainment considering the severity of 

nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.” 

Since PM2.5 designations have an effective date of April 5, 2005, the initial attainment 

date for PM2.5 areas is no later than April 5, 2010. For any areas that EPA grants the full 5-year 

attainment date extension under section 172(a), the attainment date is no later than April 5, 2015. 

Section 51.1004 of the PM2.5 implementation rule addresses the attainment date 

requirement. Section 51.1004(b) requires a state to submit an attainment demonstration 

justifying its proposed attainment date and indicates that EPA will approve an attainment date at 

the same we approve the attainment demonstration. Thus, our approval of an extended 

attainment date is dependent upon a demonstration showing expeditious attainment. 

A state that requests an extension of the attainment date under CAA section 172(a)(2)(A) 

must provide sufficient information to show that attainment by the initial attainment date of April 

5, 2010 is impracticable due the severity of the nonattainment problem in the area and the lack of 

available control measures. It must also demonstrate that all local control measures that are 

reasonably available and technologically feasible for the area are being implemented to bring 

about expeditious attainment of the standard by the alternative attainment date for the area. The 

state’s plan will need to project the emissions reductions expected due to federal and state 

regulations and local measures such as RACT and RACM, and then conduct modeling to project 

the level of air quality improvement in accordance with EPA’s modeling guidance. EPA will not 

grant an extension of the attainment date for an area beyond the initial 5 years allowed by section 

172(a)(2)(A) if the state has not considered the implementation of all RACM and RACT local 

control measures for the area. 72 FR 20586 at 20601. 

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

The attainment demonstration and the District’s proposed attainment date are found in 

Chapter 9 of the Plan and summarized in Table E-1 below. 

Based on this analysis for the annual standard, the District and CARB requested an 

attainment date extension to April 5, 2015 for both the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. See 

SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 4 and CARB Resolution 08-28, p. 4. However, as 

discussed in the Plan (pg. 9-3 to 9-4), the District believes that the area may attain prior this date 

for several reasons: 

EPA- Region 9 Page 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

•	 The receptor modeling conducted for the Plan may be conservative; that is, it 

overestimates the reductions needed for attainment. 

•	 The attainment analysis does not include emissions reductions from the District’s 

incentive programs. Under EPA’s economic incentive polities, the reductions from the 

District’s programs currently cannot be credited for SIP purposes, including attainment 

demonstrations. 

•	 While CARB has not committed to pre-2014 emissions reductions, its measures will 

likely achieve some pre-2014 reductions. 

Table E-1 

Expeditious Attainment Demonstration for the Annual PM2.5 Standard 

in the San Joaquin Valley 

(tons per annual average day) 

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 

Baseline annual NOx inventory 500.9 469.5 443.3 424.4 393.1 376.2 

District commitments -2.43 -3.24 -4.26 -8.56 -8.82 -8.97 

ARB commitments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -76.0 

Controlled inventory 498.5 466.3 439.0 415.8 384.3 291.2 

NOx emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 291.2 

At attainment level? no no no no no yes 

Baseline annual direct PM2.5 

inventory 79.8 79.0 77.9 77.0 75.9 75.0 

District commitments -1.60 -2.96 -4.46 -6.69 -6.70 -6.70 

ARB commitments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.0 

Controlled inventory 78.2 76.0 73.4 70.3 69.2 63.3 

Direct PM2.5 emissions level needed 

for PM2.5 attainment 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 

At attainment level? no no no no no yes 

Baseline annual SO2 inventory 26.4 23.0 23.3 23.6 23.8 25.5 

District commitments -0.06 -0.11 -0.16 -0.92 -0.92 -0.92 

ARB commitments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Controlled inventory 26.3 22.9 23.1 22.7 22.9 24.6 

SO2 emissions level needed for 

PM2.5 attainment 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 

At attainment level? no yes yes yes yes yes 

Overall annual PM2.5 standard 

attainment? no no no no no yes 

Projected attainment year 2014 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 9-1. 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not specifically address the most expeditious date for the 

attaining the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. In reference to attainment of the 24-hour standard, the Plan 

states: 

Attainment of the 24-hour 65 microgram standard is projected to occur prior to 2014 and 

with fewer reductions required than are needed to attain the annual standard. This means that 

the annual standard identifies the amount of reductions needed to achieve attainment. CARB 

used the regional model to evaluate the top 25% of days modeled to provide the annual 

analysis. Based on design values for 2005, CARB projected a 2014 value of 45 micrograms 

or less at all sites. Due to concerns that the last two years have experienced slightly higher 

24-hour values, the District also performed a screening assessment with estimated design 

values for 2007 (based on incomplete and uncertified data). Evaluation by the District 

projected a 2014 value of 53 micrograms. Both of these projections are well below the 65 

microgram standard and do not require a weight of evidence evaluation. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 3-32. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

SJV’s degree of PM2.5 nonattainment can fairly be characterized as severe. The area 

typically records the highest ambient PM2.5 levels in the nation, with 2007-2009 design values 

for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 levels in urban Bakersfield area of 22.6 μg/m3 and 70 μg/m3

, 

respectively. See EPA, Air Quality Subsystem, Design Value Report, August 9, 2010. The 

PM2.5 problem in the San Joaquin Valley is complex, caused by both direct and secondary PM2.5 

and compounded by the area’s topographical and meteorological conditions that are particularly 

conducive to the formation and concentration of PM2.5 particles. See 2008 PM2.5 plan, Chapter 

3. 

As discussed in section II.F. below, the District's strategy for attaining the PM2.5 standard 

relies on reductions of direct PM2.5 as well as the PM2.5 precursor pollutants NOX and SOx. The 

SJV needs significant reductions in PM2.5 and NOX, to demonstrate attainment. EPA believes 

that further reduction of these pollutants is challenging, because the State and local air pollution 

regulations already in place include most of the readily available PM2.5 and NOX, control 

measures. Moreover, attainment in the SJV depends on emissions reductions that offset the 

emissions increases associated with the projected increases in population and emissions levels 

for this high-growth area. 

Reductions of direct PM2.5 are achieved primarily from open burning, commercial 

charbroiling, and residential wood combustion control measures. These types of control 

measures present special implementation challenges (e.g., the large number of individuals 

subject to regulation and the difficulty of applying conventional technological control solutions). 

NOx reductions come largely from District rules for fuel combustion sources and from the State’s 

mobile source rules. 

Because of the necessity of obtaining additional emissions reductions from these source 

categories in the SJV and the need to conduct significant public outreach if applicable control 

EPA- Region 9 Page 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

approaches are to be effective, EPA agrees with the District and CARB that the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

reflects expeditious implementation of the programs during the 2008-2014 time frame. EPA also 

agrees that the implementation schedule for enhanced stationary source controls is expeditious, 

taking into account the time necessary for purchase and installation of the required control 

technologies. Finally, we believe that it is not feasible at this time to accelerate the emissions 

reduction schedule for the State and Federal mobile source which must rely on fleet turnover 

over the years to ultimately deliver the anticipated emissions reductions. The District's control 

strategies are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, and in section II.F. 

below. 

In addition, the State has adopted standards for many categories of on-road and off-road 

vehicles and engines, and gasoline and diesel fuels, and included commitments to develop rules 

for Smog Check Improvements, Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks, and Cleaner In-Use OffRoad Equipment. 

EPA believes that the District and State are implementing these rules and programs as 

expeditiously as practicable. We anticipate, however, that the District and CARB will reevaluate 

this conclusion after completion of the mid-course review of the PM2.5 attainment SIP for this 

area, due in April 2011. EPA also expects that the District and CARB will continue to 

investigate opportunities to accelerate progress toward attainment as new control opportunities 

arise, and that the agencies will promptly adopt and expeditiously implement any new measures 

found to be feasible in the future. 

As discussed in section II.B. above, we are proposing to disapprove the air quality 

modeling in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan because it is insufficiently documented for us to evaluate its 

adequacy. Without adequate air quality modeling, it is not possible to determine the reductions 

needed to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV and, in turn, to evaluate the availability and 

feasibility of controls needed to attain as required by in CAA section 172(a)(2). 

As discussed in section II.D. above, we are also proposing to disapprove the 

RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan in part because it does not consider 

RACM for VOC sources. As stated in 72 FR 20586 at 20601, EPA cannot grant an extension of 

the attainment date beyond the initial five years provided by section 172(a)(2)(A) if the state has 

not adequately considered and evaluated the implementation of RACM and RACT in the area. 

By definition, RACM/RACT are those controls that are necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. 40 CFR § 51.1010(a). Without 

an adequate evaluation of potential RACM/RACT controls for VOC sources, EPA is unable to 

determine whether the State’s requested attainment date is as expeditious as practicable in 

accordance with CAA 172(a)(2). 

For these reasons, EPA is proposing to not grant California’s request for an attainment 

date extension to April 5, 2015 for the San Joaquin Valley at this time. Given the severity of the 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the SJV, an extension of the attainment date would most likely 

be appropriate and approvable if it were supported by the necessary analysis and part of an 

attainment plan that meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

F. Adopted Control Strategy and Enforceable Commitments 

1. Requirements for Control Strategies and Enforceable Commitments 

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment plans to “include enforceable emission 

limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for 

attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date....” CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A), which applies to all SIP, contains virtual identical language. The PM2.5 

implementation rule requires all control measures needed for attainment be implemented as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment 

date. 40 CFR § 51.1007(b). 

In most instances, nonattainment plans should include the adopted measures it relies on to 

demonstrate attainment and RFP and/or meet other CAA requirement or should identify the 

adopted measures it relies on that are already SIP approved, federally promulgated, or otherwise 

SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of 

enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. It believes that the CAA 

allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy 

requirement when they are limited in scope. 

The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6), given above, is quite broad, 

allowing a SIP to contain any “means or techniques” that EPA determines are “necessary or 

appropriate” to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the express allowance for 

“schedules and timetables” demonstrates that Congress understood that all required controls 

might not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved. 

Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA 

and citizens under, respectively, CAA sections 113 and 304. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions against states that failed to comply 

with them: See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), 

aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 

848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. 

granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air 

Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to 

meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA 

section 179(a)(4), which starts an 18-month period for the state to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed. 

Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant use of an enforceable commitment, 

EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the enforceable commitment: (a) 

does the commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily-required program; (b) is the 

EPA- Region 9 Page 74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time.20 

2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and Revised 2007 State Strategy 

For the purposes of evaluating the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan and revised 2007 State Strategy, 

we have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet 

the RACM/RACT and contingency measures requirements into two categories: baseline 

measures and control strategy measures. 

As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and District rules and 

regulations adopted prior to December 2006 (i.e., prior to 2008 PM2.5 Plan and State Strategy 

development) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the attainment year of 

2014 and beyond. 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1 and 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, p. 

B-1. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the baseline inventory and, for the 

most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide the majority of emissions 

reductions needed to attain the PM2.5 standards in the SJV. See Table G-1 in this TSD. 

Control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, and commitments that 

provide the additional increment of emissions reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to 

demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM/RACT, and/or provide for contingency measures. 

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in 

the Appendices A and B to this TSD. 

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 

For the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and 

implementing 13 new control measures for direct PM2.5, NOx, and/or SO2. In Table F-1 below, 

we list these measures, which mostly involve strengthening existing District rules, along with 

their anticipated and actual adoption, final compliance, and initial implementation dates. As can 

be seen from Table F-1, the District has met its rulemaking schedule and has only two rule 

actions remaining. 

In Table F-2 below, we list the expected emissions reductions from each measure; 

however, we note that the District’s commitment is only to the aggregate emissions reductions 

shown. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 6-9 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 5. The 

reductions listed in Table F-2 are those anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the time 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted. Actual reductions from each rule, once adopted, may be 

greater or less than these anticipated reductions. In Table F-3, we give the current SIP submittal 

and approval status of the measures in the Plan. In Tables F-4 and F-5, we show the emissions 

20 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application of the three factor test in approving enforceable 

commitments in the Houston-Galveston ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al., 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 

2003). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

reductions, as given in the Plan, for the measures that have been approved by EPA and for the 

measures that have been approved by or submitted to EPA. 

For a number of potential measures identified during the District’s RACM analysis, 

insignificant information was available to evaluate the feasibility of implementing them in the 

San Joaquin Valley. For these measures, the District developed a schedule for performing 

feasibility studies. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, page 6-13 and Table 6-4. Measures that are identified 

as being feasible through these studies will be included in future plan updates with schedules and 

emissions reduction commitments. The list of studies and their anticipated completion date is 

given in Table F-6. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 76 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-1 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments 

Measure Number & Description District Rule 

Number 

Rule Making 

Completion 

Date 

Actual 

Adoption 

Date 

Compliance 

Date 

Actual 

Compliance 

Date 

S-AGR-1 Open Burning (Phase IV) 4103 2nd Q – 2010 April 2010 2010 June 2010 

S-COM-1 Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

4320 3rd Q – 2008 October 2008 2012 July 2012 to January 2014 

S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3rd Q – 2008 October 2008 2012 July 2010 to January 2016 S-COM-3 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MM Btu/hr) 

4308 4th Q – 2009 December 2009 2011 January 201

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

S-COM-6 Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 4702 4th Q – 2010 In workshop 2012 TBD 

S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces1 4354 3rd Q – 2008 October 2008 2009 

PM10 & SOx 

January 201

NOx limits – 

January 2014

2018 

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

S-COM-10 Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type Residential Central Furnaces 4905 4th Q – 2014 N/A Attrition TBD 

S-COM-142 Wood Burning Fireplaces 

and Wood Burning Heaters 4901 3rd Q – 2009 October 2008 2010 2010 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-1 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Commitments 

Measure Number & Description District Rule 

Number 

Rule Making 

Completion 

Date 

Actual 

Adoption 

Date 

Compliance 

Date 

Actual 

Compliance 

Date 

S-IND-9 Commercial Charbroiling 4692 2nd Q - 2009 September 2009 2011 January 201

S-IND-21 Flares 4311 2nd Q – 2009 June 2009 2010 July 2011 

M-TRAN-1 Employer Based Trip Reduction Program 9410 4th Q – 2009 December 2009 2012 January 2012 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-2, revised June 17, 2010. Actual information from specific rules.
 

1 Proposed revision would allow flat glass manufacturing facilities to agree to early compliance with the Rule’s more stringen

lieu of compliance with Phase III limits. SJVAPCD, Final Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4354 (Glass Melting F

2 Listed as S-COM-11 in Table 6-2 but as S-COM-14 elsewhere in the Plan.
 

S-AGR-1 4103 - Open Burning (Phase III & IV) S-COM-1 

Rule 4320 - Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

S-COM-3 4308 - Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr) S-COM-5 4703 - Stationary Gas Turbines S-COM-7 4354 - Glass Melting Furnaces 

Table F-2 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Comm

(tons per average annual day) 

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

1.21 1.95 2.68 2.67 

0 0 0 1.49 0 0 0.12 0.27 0 0 0 2.21 

1.22 1.25 1.18 1.60 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-2 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan Specific Rule Comm

(tons per average annual day) 

S-COM-9 4902 - Residential Water Heaters 0 0 0.20 0.25 S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 

Commitment to Total NOx Reductions 2.43 3.24 4.26 8.56 

PM2.5 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III & IV) 1.60 2.57 3.53 3.52 S-COM-1 

Rule 4320 - Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 0.23 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.39 0.76 0.73 S-IND-9 4692 - Commercial Charbroiling 0 0 2.17 2.21 

Commitment to Total PM2.5 Reductions 1.60 2.96 4.461 6.69 

SO2 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III & IV) 0.062 0.10 0.14 0.14 

S-COM-1 

Rule 4320 - Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr 

0 0 0 0.76 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 M-TRAN-1 9410 – Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs TBD TBD TBD TBD 

Commitment to Total SO2 Reductions 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.92 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-3
 

1The value 4.46 is given on Table 6-3b in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. PM2.5 reductions expected in 2011, however, sum to 6.46 tpd.
 2 Value given as 0.03 tpd in Appendix I, page I-4.
 

EPA- Region 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-3 

Approval and Submittal Status of SJVAPCD Rules in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Rule Submittal and/or 

Approval Status Dates and Citations 

Rule 4103 Open Burning (Phase IV) Not 

submitted 

Most current revision of rule approved 

(Phase III): May 17, 2007 at 74 FR 57907 

(November 10, 2009) 

Rule 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010) 

Rule 4308 Boilers, Steam Generators and 

Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MM 

Btu/hr) 

Submitted 

Submittal date: May 17, 2010 

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: 

October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29887 (May 30, 

2007) 

Rule 4320 - Advanced Emissions 

Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

Submitted 

Submittal date: March 17, 2009 

Submittal found complete: April 20, 2009 

New rule. 

Rule 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines Approved 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009) 

Rule 4702 Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines (2010 revisions) 

Under development, 

expected adoption 

December 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: 

January 18, 2007 at 73 FR 1819 (January 10, 

2008) 

Rule 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces Revisions adopted 

September 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: 

August 17, 2006 at 72 FR 41894 (August 1, 

2007) 

Rule 4902 Residential Water Heaters Approved 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010) 

Rule 4905 - Natural Gas-Fired, Fan Type 

Residential Central Furnaces (2014 

revisions) 

Adoption scheduled 

for 2014 

Most current revision of rule approved: 

October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29886 (May 30, 

2007) 

Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and 

Wood Burning Heaters Approved 74 FR 57907 (November 10, 2009) 

Rule 4692 Commercial Charbroiling Submitted 

Submittal date: May 17, 2010 

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: 

March 21, 2002 at 68 FR 33005 (June 3, 

2003) 

Rule 4311 Flares Submitted 

Submittal date: January 10, 2010 

Submittal found complete: February 4, 2010 

Most current revision of rule approved: June 

20, 2002 at 68 FR 8835 (February 26, 2003) 

Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip 

Reduction Program Submitted 

Submittal date: May 17, 2010 

Submittal found complete: June 8, 2010 

New rule. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 80 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-4 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan From Approved Measur

Reductions Based on Plan Assumptions 

(tons per average annual day) 

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III)1 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 

S-COM-5 4703 - Stationary Gas Turbines 0 0 0 2.21 

S-COM-7 4354 - Glass Melting Furnaces (2006)2 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 

S-COM-9 4902 - Residential Water Heaters 0 0 0.20 0.25 S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 

Total NOx Reductions from Approved Measures 2.43 2.5 2.76 5.04 

PM2.5 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III) 1.60 1.59 1.59 1.58 S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.39 0.76 0.73 

Total PM2.5 Reductions from Approved Measures 1.60 1.98 2.35 2.31 

SO2 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 

Total SO2 Reductions from Approved Measures 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 

1 Future year reductions adjusted to reflect expected non-rule related decline in opening burning and to remove reductions fro

not yet been submitted.
 

2 Assumes reductions only from the 2006 revision to the Rule and not from either 2008 or pending 2010 revisions of the rule.
 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-5 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan From Approved or Submitted 

Reductions Based on Plan Assumptions 

(tons per average annual day) 

NOx Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III) 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 S-COM-1 

4320 - Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 1.49 

S-COM-3 4308 - Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MMBtu/hr) 0 0 0.12 0.27 

S-COM-5 4703 - Stationary Gas Turbines 0 0 0 2.21 

S-COM-7 4354 - Glass Melting Furnaces (2006) 1.22 1.25 1.28 1.31 S-COM-9 4902 - Residential Water Heaters 0 0 0.20 0.25 S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 S-IND-9 4692 - Commercial Charbroiling 0 0 0 0 

S-IND-21 4311 - Flares 0 0 0 0 

M-TRAN-1 9410 – Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs 0 0 0 0 

Total NOx Reductions from Approved or Submitted Measures 2.43 2.50 2.88 6.80 

PM2.5 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III) 1.60 1.59 1.59 1.58 S-COM-1 

4320 - Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 0.23 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.39 0.76 0.73 S-IND-9 4692 - Commercial Charbroiling 0 0 2.17 2.21 M-TRAN-1 9410 – Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs 0 0 0 0 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-5 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Emissions Reductions for 2008 PM2.5 Plan From Approved or Submitted 

Reductions Based on Plan Assumptions 

(tons per average annual day) 

Total PM2.5 Reductions from Approved or Submitted Measures 1.60 1.98 4.52 4.75 

SO2 Emissions Reductions 

2009 2010 2011 2012 

S-AGR-1 4103 – Open Burning (Phase III) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 S-COM-1 

4320 - Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 

0 0 0 0.76 

S-COM-14 4901 - Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 M-TRAN-1 9410 – Employer Based Trip Reduction Programs 0 0 0 0 

Total SO2 Reductions from Approved or Submitted Measures 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.84 

Table F-6 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2008 PM2.5 Plan Feasibility Studies 

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number An

C

S-AGR-2 Conservation Management Practices 4550 S-COM- 4 Solid Fuel Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) 4352 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table F-6 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2008 PM2.5 Plan Feasibility Studies 

Measure Number & Description District Rule Number An

C

S-COM-6A Small Spark-Ignited Engines and Agricultural Spark-Ignited Engines 4702 

S-COM-8 Lime Kilns 4313 

S-COM-11 Dryers 4309 

S-GOV-6 Prescribed Burning 4106 S-IND-8 Cotton Gins 4204 

S-IND-4 Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions Reg. VIII 

M-OTH-8 Indirect Source Review Enhancement 9510 M-OTH-10 Fireworks -­ 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 6-4. 

EPA- Region 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

b. CARB Measures and Commitments 

The 2007 State Strategy provides a list of State measures adopted from 1994 until 2006. 

See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38. A fuller list can be found in Appendix A of this TSD. 

In addition to the State’s baseline measures, the 2007 State Strategy includes enforceable 

commitments for emissions reductions from mobile source categories that are crucial for 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. For the SJV, the 2007 State Strategy 

includes State commitments to achieve 5 tpd of direct PM2.5, 76 tpd of NOx, and 23 tpd of VOC 

reductions. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6. 

The 2007 State Strategy expects to achieve these emissions reductions in the San Joaquin 

Valley by the attainment year of 2014 from measures such as Smog Check Improvements, 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks, Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment, and accelerated 

introduction of cleaner line-haul locomotives. These measures are described in more detail in 

the 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5 as modified in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B and 

the 2009 State Strategy Status Report. 

In the 2007 State Strategy, CARB provides an estimated emissions reduction for each 

measure to show that, when considered together, these measures can meet the total commitment. 

CARB states, however, that its enforceable commitment is to achieve the aggregate emissions 

reductions for each pollutant by given dates and not for a specific level of reductions from any 

specific measure. See 2007 State Strategy, as modified in CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment 

B, p. 6. A summary of the estimates from the proposed measures is provided in Table F-8 

below. In this table, we list only those 2007 State Strategy measures for which CARB estimated 

an emissions reduction in the SJV. 

CARB’s commitment is also to propose specific new measures that are identified and 

defined in the 2007 State Strategy, p. 62 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8. Table 

F-9 below lists these defined measures. As shown on this table, the State has adopted many of 

the measures. Table F-10 lists the emissions reductions the State estimates it will achieve from 

these measures as adopted. Table F-11 lists the emissions reductions that are currently creditable 

for SIP purposes. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-8 

Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the Revised 2007 

State Strategy for the San Joaquin Valley 

(Tons Per Day 2014) 

State Measure PM2.5 NOx VOC21 

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 0.05 3.3 2.9 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 0.01 0.5 0.7 

Modifications to Reformulated 

Gasoline Program -­ -­ 2.9 

Cleaner In-Use Heave-Duty Trucks 3.6 61.4 6.4 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner LineHaul Locomotives 0.2 7.2 0.2 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 

(>25hp) 0.8 3.7 0.9 

Cleaner In-Use Agricultural 

Equipment NYQ NYQ NYQ 

New Emission Standards for 

Recreational Boats 0.1 -­ 1.3 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions Standards -­ -­ 2.2 

Additional Evaporative Emissions 

Standards -­ -­ NYQ 

Vapor Recovery for Above Ground 

Storage Tanks -­ -­ NYQ 

Consumer Products Program -­ -­ 3.2 

Pesticides: Department of Pesticide 

Regulation -­ -­ 2.5 

Totals: 5 76 23 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 18. Only defined measures with PM2.5, NOx or VOC reductions in
 

the SJV are shown here.
 

NYQ = Not yet quantified.
 

21 CARB uses the term reactive organic gases (ROG) where we use the term VOC. We will use the term 

VOC in this notice to refer to both ROG and VOC. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-9 

Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for 

Consideration and Current Status 

State Measures Primary 

Area 

Expected 

Adoption 

Year 

Current Status 

Defined Measures in 2007 State Strategy 

Smog Check Improvements Both 2007-2008 Elements approved 75 FR 

38023 (July 1, 2010) 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement Both 2008-2014 

Adopted by CARB, June 

2009; by BAR, September 

2010. 

Modification to Reformulated 

Gasoline Program Both 2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010) 

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks Both 2008 Adopted December 2008; 

pending revisions 

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and 

Other Clean Technologies SC 2007-2008 Adopted December 2007. 

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and 

Fuels SC 

Fuel: 2007 

Engines: 

2009 

Adopted July 2007. 

Port Truck Modernization South 

Coast 2007-2008 Adopted December 2007 

and December 2008 

Accelerated Introduction of 

Cleaner Locomotives Both 2007-2008 In progress 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft South 

Coast 2007 Adopted November 2007, revised June 2010. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines Both 2007 Adopted July 2007, pending 

revisions. 

Clearer In-Use Agricultural 

Equipment SJV 2009 Incentive program in 

progress. 

New Emissions Standards for 

Recreational Boats Both 2009-2010 

Partially adopted, July 

2008; additional 

requirements pending. 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions Standards Both By 2010 Adopted November 2008. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-9 

Revised 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for 

Consideration and Current Status 

State Measures Primary 

Area 

Expected 

Adoption 

Year 

Current Status 

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for 

Above Ground Storage Tanks Both 2007 Adopted June 2007 

Additional Evaporative Emissions 

Standards Both By 2010 

Partial adoption: September 

2008 (outboard marine 

tanks) 

Consumer Products Program (I & 

II) Both 2008 & 2010-2012 

Phase I – Approved, 74 FR 

57074 (November 4, 2009). 

Additional revision adopted 

2009. 

Department of Pesticide 

Regulation SJV 2008 

Adopted 2008, amended 

2009, additional 

amendments pending. SIP 

measures. 

Additional Measures Adopted Since 2007 

Light Duty Vehicle Catalyst 

Replacement Both N/A Adopted October 2007. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 

Heavy-duty Vehicles Both N/A Adopted December 2008. 

Large Spark Ignition Engines 

greater than 1 liter, Rule 

Amendment 

Both N/A Adopted November 2008. 

Both = South Coast and SJV. Source: www.arb.ca.gov. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-10 

Achieved Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the Revised 

2007 State Strategy for the San Joaquin Valley 

(Tons Per Day 2014) 

State Measure PM2.5 NOx VOC 

Smog Check Improvements 

(BAR) 0.0 0.0 0.8 

Modification to Reformulated 

Gasoline Program 0.0 0.0 2.9 

Cleaner In-Use Heave-Duty 

Trucks 4.3 65.6 4.3 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner 

Line-Haul Locomotives NYQ NYQ NYQ 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Craft 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment (>25hp) 0.8 3.7 0.9 

Consumer Products Program -­ -­ 0.5 

Department of Pesticide 

Regulation -­ -­ 1.5 

Totals: 5.1 69.3 10.9 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 6. Only defined measures with PM2.5, NOx, or VOC reductions in 

the SJV are shown here. NYQ = Not yet quantified. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-11 

Current Creditable Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy for the San Joaquin Valley 

(Tons Per Day 2014) 

State Measure PM2.5 NOx VOC Status 

Smog Check Improvements 

(BAR) 0.0 0.0 0.8 Approved 

Modification to Reformulated 

Gasoline Program 0.0 0.0 2.9 Approved 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty 

Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 Not submitted 

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner 

Line-Haul Locomotives NYQ NYQ NYQ No reductions claimed 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment (>25hp) 0.0 0.0 Rule under revision 

Consumer Products Program -­ -­ 0.5 Approved 

Department of Pesticide 

Regulation -­ -­ 0.0 Submitted, no action. 

Rule under revision 

Totals: 0.0 0.0 4.2 

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 6. Only defined measures with PM2.5, NOx, or VOC reductions in 

the SJV are shown here. 

NYQ = Not yet quantified. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

a. Baseline Measures 

As shown in Table F-12, the majority of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment come from baseline measures. These reductions come from a combination of District 

and State measures.22 

In the past two decades, SJVAPCD has adopted (and in many case revised each several 

times) almost 40 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of NOx, SO2 and/or particulate matter 

including most of the rule adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan.23 

See Appendix B and Table F-3. These rules include controls for boilers, fugitive dust sources, 

22 Reductions in the baseline also come from federal measures. These federal measures include EPA’s 

national emissions standards for heavy duty diesel trucks (66 FR 5001 (January 18, 2001)), certain new construction 

and farm equipment (Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 (October, 23, 1998) and Tier 4 diesel 

non-road engine standards, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004)), and locomotives (63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73 

FR 37045 (June 30, 2008)). States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and for other SIP purposes. 

23 As noted previously, it has also adopted and/or revised numerous prohibitory rules that address VOC 

emissions from stationary and area sources in the SJV. See Appendix B of this TSD. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

engines, woodburning, and open burning. The great majority of these rules and rule revisions are 

currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully creditable in attainment 

and RFP demonstrations and for other CAA requirements, such as contingency measures. 

Table F-12 

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration 

(tons per average annual day in 2014) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

A 2005 baseline emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4 

B 2014 attainment target level 63.3 291.2 24.6 

C Total reductions needed from 2005 baseline 

levels to attain in 2014 (A – B) 22.7 284.2 1.8 

D 2014 baseline emissions level 75.0 376.2 25.5 

Reductions from baseline measures (A-D) 11.0 199.2 0.9 

% of reductions needed for attainment from 

baseline measures 48.5% 70.1% 50% 

Reductions needed from control strategy 

measures (B - D) 11.7 85.0 0.9 

% of reductions needed for attainment from 

control strategy measures 51.5% 29.9 50% 

California has adopted standards for many categories of on- and off-road vehicles and 

engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of consumer products. The State’s 

measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to 

obtain a waiver of federal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (section 209 waiver measure or 

waiver measure) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver 

measures). See EPA’s proposed approval and final approval of the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan at 

74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010). 

i. Section 209 Waiver Measures. A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, 

required for most of California’s on- and non-road vehicle or engine standards. Examples of 

State waiver measures are: low emission vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small 

off-road engines. A list of California’s waiver measures can be found in the Appendix A of this 

TSD. 

Historically, EPA has granted credit for the California’s waiver measures without first 

approving them into the SIP because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the 

EPA- Region 9 Page 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and 

because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order 

“to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the 

health of its citizens and the public welfare,” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301–2 

(1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact 

that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures 

similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed 

states to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. 

EPA’s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for waiver measures by allowing 

California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California’s EMFAC 

(and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model as part of the baseline emissions 

inventory. EMFAC was also used to prepare baseline inventory projections into the future, and 

thus the plans typically showed a decrease in motor vehicle emissions due to the gradual 

replacement of more polluting vehicles with vehicles manufactured to meet newer, more 

stringent California vehicle standards. The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle 

emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for 

vehicle deterioration and many other factors. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves 

combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations. See the 

1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 48 FR 

5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the 

final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA in 

California SIP actions.24 

California’s motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute 

regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which 

amended the CAA of 1963). In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 

1967 (Pub. L. 90-148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of 

the Air Quality Act’s pre-emption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new 

motor vehicle engines because of California’s pioneering efforts and unique problems. This was 

not changed when the statute was amended in 1970. The 1977 amendments to the CAA 

expanded the flexibility granted to California in order “to afford California the broadest possible 

24 EPA’s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence 

of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA’s review and approval of a May 1979 

revision to the California SIP entitled, “Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.” In our proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California’s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular 

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to “ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,” including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: “The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.” Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.” 

(H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). So long as California determines that 

its motor vehicle standards are “in the aggregate” at least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain 

findings, to waive the Act’s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards 

relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. See 

CAA section 209(a) and (b). 

In the EPA’s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically 

allowed emissions reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are subject to a 

section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA 

for approval as part of the California SIP. In this respect EPA treated these rules similarly to the 

federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in 

their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. CAA section 193, enacted as part 

of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings clause that provides for, among other 

things, EPA statutory interpretations that predate those amendments to remain in effect so long 

as not inconsistent with the Act. At the time it enacted section 193, Congress did not insert any 

language into the statute rendering EPA’s treatment of California’s motor vehicle standards 

inconsistent with the Act. Thus, in section 193, Congress effectively ratified EPA’s longstanding 

pre-1990 practice of allowing emissions reduction credit for California standards subject to the 

waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself. 

As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 

209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets 

forth the federal pre-emption of state emissions standards for non-road vehicles or engines but 

allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with certain 

exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles. 

Since 1990, EPA has treated such non-road standards in the same manner as California motor 

vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without 

requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. Congress is presumed to be aware of 

agency interpretations and its subsequent revision of the statute to add subsection (e) without 

overruling EPA’s interpretation with respect to motor vehicle standards is further compelling 

evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting 

California requirements subject to a section 209 waiver without requiring California to submit 

the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP. 

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 

1990, effectively ratified our long-standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver 

rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA’s treatment of 

California’s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the 

California waiver provisions to most types of non-road vehicles and engines, once again 

reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in 

selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the 

waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not 

consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California 

EPA- Region 9 Page 93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with 

Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California’s mobile source 

rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. 

EPA’s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval process. 

First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state 

level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA receives new 

waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and 

comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment 

period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the 

argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, 

not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Moreover, just as SIP revisions are not 

effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB’s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) 

are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are “within the scope” of a 

prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. 

Moreover, to maintain a waiver, CARB’s rules can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate 

equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). See section 209(b)(1). In 

this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California’s on-road waiver measures (i.e., 

absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California). Likewise, Federal non-road vehicle 

and engine standards act as a backstop where there is a corresponding California non-road 

waiver measure. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which 

CARB can relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and 

thereby serve an anti-backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP 

revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between 

California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions 

reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal 

program in serving as an effective backstop to the State program. In other words, with the 

harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the 

Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program. 

We note that CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions 

standards as EPA, and CARB’s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding 

EPA program. The history and rigor of CARB’s enforcement program lends assurance to 

California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB’s rules in the same 

manner as EPA’s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state’s SIPs in 

their reliance on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. 

ii. Non-waiver measures 

These measures include improvements to California’s inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program, SmogCheck; and cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations; and. A list of these 

non-waiver measures, most of which have been SIP approved, can be found Appendix A. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

b. Enforceable Commitments 

As stated and shown in Table F-13 below, measures already adopted by the District and 

State (both prior to and pursuant to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan) and approved by EPA provide the 

majority of emissions reductions the State projects are needed to demonstrate attainment. The 

balance of the needed reductions is in the form of enforceable commitments by the District and 

CARB. 

We believe that, with respect to the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and revised 2007 State Strategy, 

circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment 

demonstration for the SJV. As shown in Table F-12 above, the majority of emissions reductions 

that the State currently estimates are needed to demonstrate attainment and RFP in the SJV come 

from rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., they come from the baseline 

measures. As a result of these State and District efforts, most sources in the San Joaquin Valley 

nonattainment area were already subject to stringent rules prior to State Strategy’s and the Plan’s 

development, leaving fewer and more technologically challenging opportunities to reduce 

emissions. In the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the SJVAPCD and CARB 

identified potential control measures that could achieve the additional emissions reductions 

needed for attainment. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix I and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. 

However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these measures went well 

beyond the April 5, 200825 deadline to submit the PM2.5 attainment plan. As discussed above, 

the District and State have made progress meeting their commitments but have not completely 

fulfilled them. Given these circumstances, we consider the District’s and CARB’s reliance in the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State Strategy on enforceable commitments to be warranted. We now 

consider the three factors EPA uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in 

lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA planning requirements is approvable. 

25 The 2007 State Strategy was developed to address both the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone NAAQS. The 8-hour ozone SIPs were due in November 2007, and the development and adoption of the 

State Strategy was timed to coordinate with this submittal date. 2007 State Strategy, p. 1. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table F-13 

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments based on 

Approved Measures using Plan Assumptions Regarding Emissions Reductions 

(tons per average annual day in 2014) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

A Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8 

B Reductions from baseline measures 11.0 199.2 0.9 

C Total reductions from approved measures 

(Tables F-4 and F-11) 2.3 5.2 0.1 

Total reductions remaining as commitments (AB-C) 9.4 79.8 0.8 

% of total reductions needed remaining as 

commitments 41.4% 28.0% 44.4% 

Total District commitments 6.7 9.0 0.9 

Total reductions from approved District 

measures26 2.3 5.2 0.1 

Total reductions remaining as District 

commitments 4.4 3.8 0.8 

% of District’s commitments remaining as 

commitments 65.7% 42.2% 88.9% 

Total CARB commitments 5.0 76.0 0 

Total reductions from approved/waived 

measures 

0.0 0.0 0 

Total reductions remaining as CARB 

commitments 5.0 76.0 0 

% of CARB commitments remaining as 

commitments 100% 100% 0% 

i. Commitments are a Limited Portion of Required Reductions 

For the first factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a limited portion of a 

statutory requirement, such as the amount of emissions reductions needed for attainment in a 

nonattainment area. 

26 CARB has submitted five other District rules that if approved would increase the reductions from 

approved District measures to 4.8 tpd PM2.5, 7.3 tpd NOx, and 0.8 tpd SO2 based on Plan assumptions. See Table F5 above. The total reductions then remaining as District commitments would be 1.9 tpd PM2.5 (28.4%), 1.7 tpd NOx 

(18.9%), and 0.1 tpd SO2 (11.1%). Overall total of reductions remaining as commitments would be 6.9 tpd PM2.5 

(30.4%), 77.7 tpd NOx (27.3%), and 0.1 SO2 (5.6%). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 96 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

As shown Table G-3, the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments, after 

accounting for approved measures, for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and revised 2007 State Strategy are 

9.4 tpd PM2.5, 79.8 tpd NOx and 0.8 tpd SO2. When compared to the total reductions needed by 

2014 for PM2.5 attainment, the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments represents 

approximately 41 percent of the needed PM2.5, 28 percent of the needed NOx, and 44 percent of 

the needed SO2. Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with enforceable commitments in the 

range of 10 percent or less. See our approval of the SJV PM10 Plan at 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 

2004), the SJV 1-hour ozone plan at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010), and the Houston-Galveston 

1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001). 

We note that there are significant emissions reductions tied to the Cleaner In-Use HeavyDuty Trucks measure and Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Engines listed in the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report, page 6. EPA understands that the State is working on adopting revisions to these 

rules and submitting them for EPA approval or waiver under CAA section 209 as necessary. It is 

possible that the reductions from these measures and several outstanding District rules will 

reduce the percentage of the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments to below 10 

percent. However, until these (or other) measures are adopted, submitted, and EPA approved, 

we believe that the percentages of enforceable commitments for direct PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 

relied upon in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and revised 2007 State Strategy are too high and do not 

represent a limited portion of the State’s current estimate of total emissions reductions needed to 

meet the statutory requirement for attainment in the SJV. 

ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment 

For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling 

their commitments. 

As discussed above, CARB adopted and submitted a 2009 State Strategy Status Report 

which updates and revises the 2007 State Strategy. This report shows that CARB has made 

significant progress in meeting its enforceable commitments for the San Joaquin Valley and 

several other nonattainment areas in California. The 2009 State Strategy Status Report shows 

that during 2007 and 2008, the State has adopted rules for ten measures identified in the 2007 

State Strategy and three rules that were not identified in the Strategy that will contribute to the 

PM2.5 and NOx reductions needed to attainment the PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. The 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report includes a table with estimates of the reductions that may fulfill the 

CARB’s full commitment. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 18. 

EPA believes that the District has also made good progress in meeting its enforceable 

commitments and that its continued efforts in committing to and adopting measures for sources 

under its jurisdiction will help them meet its commitments. See Table F-1. 

In addition, beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have wellfunded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on- and off-road engine fleets. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

While progress has been made by the District and State to achieve their enforceable 

commitments, there are still significant reductions that must be addressed in order to satisfy the 

commitments. As discussed above, the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments is 28 

to 44 percent for the relevant pollutants. Given the evidence of the State's and District’s efforts 

to date and their continuing efforts to reduce emissions, we believe that the State and District are 

capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to achieve total reductions of 11.7 tpd direct 

PM2.5, 85 tpd NOx, and 0.9 tpd SO2 in the San Joaquin Valley by 2014. 

iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe 

Finally, for the third factor, we consider whether the commitment is for a reasonable and 

appropriate period of time. In order to meet the commitments to achieve reductions of achieve 

11.7 tpd direct PM2.5, 85 tpd NOx and 0.9 tpd SO2 by 2014, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and 2007 State 

Strategy include an ambitious rule development, adoption, and implementation schedule. EPA 

considers this schedule to provide sufficient time to achieve the committed reductions by 2014. 

As we noted before, many of the scheduled measures have been adopted. See Tables F-1 and F9 above. The State and District are continuing to evaluate their adopted measures and the need 

for additional reductions from new measures 

While we believe the State and District have provided a reasonable and appropriate 

schedule for achieving their commitments by 2014, as discussed above, EPA is not proposing to 

grant the attainment date extension for the San Joaquin Valley. Thus, we cannot currently 

conclude that the third factor is satisfied. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 98 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

G. Attainment Demonstrations 

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations 

CAA sections 172(b) and (c) require states to submit plans that demonstrates attainment 

of the applicable standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the applicable 

attainment date. Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, this demonstration should consists of four 

parts: 

(1) technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of emissions that are 

contributing to violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS; 

(2) analyses of future year emissions reductions and air quality improvement resulting 

from already-adopted national and local programs, and from potential new local measures 

to meet the RACT, RACM, and RFP requirements in the area; 

(3) adopted emissions reduction measure with schedules for implementation; and 

(4) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. 

See 72 FR 20586 at 20605. 

The requirements for parts 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory, air quality 

modeling, and RACM/RACT sections of this TSD. Requirements for parts 3 and 4 are described 

in the control strategy and contingency measures sections of this TSD, respectively. In this 

section, we evaluate how these parts taken together provide or do not provide for attainment of 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as expeditiously as practicable but no later 

than the attainment date required by the CAA. 

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

The attainment demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is in Section 9.1 “Attainment 

Outlook.” It is summarized in Table G-1 below. Table G-2 shows the contributions by the 

District and CARB to the control strategy. 

Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, both 

CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures in their plans, and many have been 

approved by or submitted to EPA. See Tables F-3 and F-9. Each approved measure reduces the 

level of the District’s and State’s commitments. Table G-3 shows the effect of SIP approvals on 

the overall level of commitments in the Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table G-1 

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration 

(tons per average annual day in 2014) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

A 2005 baseline emissions level 86.0 575.4 26.4 

B 2014 attainment target level 63.3 291.2 24.6 

C Total reductions needed from 2005 baseline 

levels to attain in 2014 (A – B) 22.7 284.2 1.8 

D 2014 baseline emissions level 75.0 376.2 25.5 

Reductions from baseline measures (A-D) 11.0 199.2 0.9 

% of reductions needed for attainment from 

baseline measures 48.5% 70.1% 50% 

Reductions needed from control strategy 

measures (B - D) 11.7 85.0 0.9 

% of reductions needed for attainment from 

control strategy measures 51.5% 29.9 50% 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Tables 8-1 and 9-1. 

Table G-2 

Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency 

(tons per average annual day in 2014) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

Total reductions needed from baseline and 

control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8 

Total reductions from control strategy measures 11.7 85.0 0.9 

District commitments 6.7 9.0 0.9 

% of total control strategy reductions from 

District commitments 57.3% 10.6% 100% 

State commitments 5.0 76.0 0 

% of total control strategy reductions from State 

commitments 43.7% 89.4% 0% 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-1. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table G-3 

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments 

based on Approved Measures using Plan Assumptions 

Regarding Emissions Reductions 

(tons per average annual day in 2014) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 Combined 

A Total reductions needed from baseline 

and control strategy measures to attain 22.7 284.2 1.8 308.7 

B Reductions from baseline measures 11.0 199.2 0.9 211.1 

C Total reductions from approved 

measures (Table F-4) 2.3 5.2 0.1 7.6 

Total reductions remaining as 

commitments (A-B-C) 9.4 79.8 0.8 90.0 

% of total reductions needed 

remaining as commitments 41.4% 28.0% 44.4% 29.2% 

Total District commitments 6.7 9.0 0.9 16.6 

Total reductions from approved 

District measures 2.3 5.2 0.1 7.6 

Total reductions remaining as District 

commitments 4.4 3.8 0.8 9.0 

% of District’s commitments 

remaining as commitments 65.7% 42.2% 88.9% 54.2% 

Total CARB commitments 5.0 76.0 -­ 81.0 

Total reductions from 

approved/waived measures 0.0 0.0 -­ 0.0 

Total reductions remaining as CARB 

commitments 5.0 76.0 -­ 81.0 

% of CARB commitments remaining 

as commitments 100% 100% -­ 100% 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings 

and approve the State’s requested attainment date. 

First, we must find that the demonstration’s technical bases-emissions inventories and air 

quality modeling-are adequate. As discussed above in sections II.A. and II.B., we are proposing 

EPA- Region 9 Page 101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

to approved the emissions inventories but to disapprove the air quality modeling on which the 

SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s attainment demonstration is based. 

Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious attainment through the 

implementation of all RACM and RACT. As discussed above in section II.D., we are proposing 

to disapprove the RACM/RACT demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 SIP. 

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are 

creditable. As discussed in section II.F., the 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies on enforceable commitments 

for almost 30 percent of the State’s current estimate of the combined emissions reductions 

needed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. See Table G-3. While EPA has previously 

accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control measures in attainment 

demonstrations, EPA has done so only when the circumstances warrant it and the commitments 

meet three criteria. We believe that circumstances here warrant the consideration of enforceable 

commitments. We also believe that both the State and the District have demonstrated their 

capability to meet their commitments. However, the commitments do not constitute a limited 

portion of the required emissions reductions and are not for an appropriate timeframe. The 

State’s and District’s unfulfilled commitments currently represent 41 percent of the PM2.5 

reductions, 28 percent of the NOx reductions, and 44 percent of the SO2 emissions reductions 

currently estimated to be required for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the SJV. These 

percentages are well above the 10 percent figure generally accepted by EPA to approve an 

attainment demonstration that relies in part on enforceable commitments. 

Finally, for a PM2.5 nonattainment area that cannot attain with five years of its 

designation as nonattainment, EPA must grant an extension of the attainment date in order to 

approve the attainment demonstration for the area. As discussed above in section II.E., while 

we believe that an extension of the attainment date would be appropriate if supported by the 

necessary analysis, we are proposing to not grant the State’s request to extend the attainment date 

in the SJV to April 5, 2015. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration 

in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

H. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 

Clean Air Act Section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment areas shall provide 

for reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [Part D] or 

may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.” 

The PM2.5 implementation rule requires a state to submit a RFP plan at the same time as 

its attainment demonstration for any area for which the state requests an extension of the 

attainment date beyond 2010. The RFP plan must provide emissions reductions such that 

emissions in 2009 represent generally linear progress from the baseline year to the attainment 

year. Where a state requests an extension of the attainment deadline to 2014 or 2015, the state 

must additionally provide emissions reductions such that emissions in 2012 represent generally 

linear progress from the baseline year to the attainment year. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(c). 72 FR 

20586 at 20633. 

The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for meeting the reasonable 

further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation of those measures, and the 

expected reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and all PM2.5 attainment plan precursors. See 

40 CFR § 51.1009(c). 

A state is also required to demonstrate in its RFP plan that in each applicable milestone 

year (that is, 2009 and 2012), emissions will be at a level consistent with generally linear 

progress in reducing emissions between the base year and the attainment year. See 40 CFR § 

51.1009(d). A state may demonstration this by showing that emissions for each milestone year 

are either 1) roughly equivalent to benchmark emission levels for direct PM2.5 emission and each 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan or 2) at levels included in an alternative 

scenario that is projected to result in a generally equivalent improvement in air quality by the 

milestone year as would be achieved under the first option. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(g). 72 FR 

20586 at 20639. 

The steps for determining the benchmark emissions levels are given in the PM2.5 

implementation rule in 40 CFR § 51.1009(f): 

(1) For direct PM2.5 emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the 

attainment strategy, the full implementation reduction is calculated by subtracting the full 

implementation inventory from the baseline year inventory. The full implementation 

inventory is the projected RFP emissions inventory for the year preceding the attainment 

date, representing a level of emissions that demonstrates attainment. The baseline year 

inventory is the emissions inventory for the year used as the base year for the attainment 

demonstration (see 40 CFR § 51.1000). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

(2) For direct PM2.5 emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the 

attainment strategy, a benchmark emissions reduction is calculated by multiplying the full 

implementation reduction by the milestone date fraction. The milestone date fraction is 

the ratio of the number of years from the baseline year to the milestone inventory year 

divided by the number of years from the baseline year to the full implementation year. 

(3) The benchmark emissions level in the milestone year is calculated for direct PM2.5 

emissions and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor by subtracting the benchmark 

emissions reduction from the baseline year emission level. The benchmark RFP plan is 

defined as a plan that achieves benchmark emission levels for direct PM2.5 emissions and 

each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy for the area. 

In comparing inventories between baseline and future years for direct PM2.5 emissions 

and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor, the inventories must be derived from the same 

geographic area. The plan must include emissions estimates for all types of emitting sources and 

activities in the geographic area from which the emissions inventories for direct PM2.5 emissions 

and each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the plan are derived. See 40 CFR § 

51.1009(f)(5). 

The equivalence of an alternative scenario to the corresponding benchmark plan must be 

determined by comparing the expected air quality changes of the two scenarios at the design 

value monitor location. This comparison must use the information developed for the attainment 

plan to assess the relationship between emissions reductions of the direct PM2.5 emissions and 

each PM2.5 attainment plan precursor addressed in the attainment strategy and the ambient air 

quality improvement for the associated ambient species. See 40 CFR § 51.1009(h). The 

preamble to the proposed PM2.5 implementation rule provides an example of an alternative 

scenario. See 70 FR 65984, 66013 (November 1, 2005). 

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

The RFP demonstration is in Chapter 8 of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The demonstration 

addresses direct PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 and uses the 2005 annual average day inventory as the 

baseline year inventory and 2014 as the attainment year. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 104 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table H-1 

Full Implementation Reductions 

(tons per average annual day) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

2005 Baseline Inventory 86.0 575.4 26.4 

2014 Attainment Target 

Emissions Level (Full 

Implementation Inventory) 

63.3 291.2 24.6 

Full Implementation Reductions 22.7 284.2 1.8 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-1 

The 2014 attainment year is 9 years from the 2005 baseline year making the 2009 

milestone date fraction 4/9 and the 2012 milestone date fraction 7/9. 

Table H-2 

Benchmark Calculations 

(tons per average annual day) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

A. Full Implementation Reductions 22.7 284.2 1.8 

B. 2009 Milestone Date Fraction (4/9) 0.44 0.44 0.44 

C. 2009 Benchmark Emissions 

Reductions (A * B) 10.1 126.3 0.8 

D. 2009 Benchmark Emissions Level 

(2005 Baseline inventory – C) 75.9 449.1 25.6 

E. 2012 Milestone Date Fraction (7/9) 0.78 0.78 0.78 

F. 2012 Benchmark Emissions 

Reductions (A * E) 17.7 221.0 1.3 

G. 2009 Benchmark Emissions Level 

(2005 Baseline inventory – F) 68.3 354.4 25.1 

H 

Percent annual reductions needed for 

linear progress (1

/9 *A / 2005 baseline 

inventory) 

2.9% 5.5% 0.8% 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-2 

EPA- Region 9 Page 105 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table H-3 

Baseline Emissions Inventory Adjusted for Plan Control Strategy 

(tons per average annual day) 

2005 2009 2012 2014 

PM2.5 

Baseline Inventory 86.0 79.8 77.0 75.0 

District control Measures 0.0 1.6 6.69 6.70 

ARB control measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.00 

Full implementation inventory by 

milestone year 86.0 78.2 70.3 63.3 

NOx 

Baseline Inventory 575.4 500.9 424.4 376.2 

District control Measures 0 2.43 8.56 8.97 

ARB control measures 0 0 0 76.0 

Full implementation inventory by 

milestone year 575.4 498.5 415.8 291.2 

SO2 

Baseline Inventory 26.4 26.4 23.6 25.5 

District control Measures 0 0.06 0.92 0.92 

ARB control measures 0 0 0 0 

Full implementation inventory by 

milestone year 26.4 26.3 22.7 24.6 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-1 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan presents the RFP demonstration in terms of cumulative emissions 

reductions and percent reductions per year. This demonstration reserved 1 percent of the direct 

PM2.5 baseline (0.8 tpd) and 3 percent of the NOx baseline (12-15 tpd NOx) as contingency 

measures by decreasing the cumulative emissions reductions in each milestone year by these 

amounts. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 8-3. The Plan did not include a contingency reserve for SO2. 

2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-9. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 106 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table H-4 

Fraction Reductions Achieved in Each Milestone Year 

(tons per annual average day) 

Milestone 

Year Baseline Emissions 

Cumulative 

Emissions 

Reductions 

Percent of 

Emissions 

Reductions Needed 

for Attainment 

Percent Per Year 

(from 2005 to 

Milestone Year) 

PM2.5 

2005 86.0 

2009 79.8 7.1 32 2 

2012 77.0 15 68 2 

2014 75.0 22 100 3 

NOx 

2005 575.4 

2009 500.9 59.6 22 3 

2012 424.4 142.3 53 4 

2014 376.2 266.9 100 5 

SO2 

2005 26.4 

2009 23.0 3.5 125 3 

2012 23.8 3.5 125 2 

2014 24.5 2.8 100 1 

Source: 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Table 8-4. 

Based on the information in the above table, the District concluded that the 2008 PM2.5 

Plan meet the RFP requirement with generally linear progress towards attainment and by 

providing reductions in direct PM2.5 and precursor emissions as quickly as possible. See 2008 

PM2.5 plan, p. 8-4. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

Because California has requested an attainment date of 2015 for the SJV, the Plan has 

addressed RFP for both 2009 and 2012 as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009(c)(2). 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan describes in Chapter 6 (tables 6-2 and 6-3) the non-baseline 

control measures that are relied on to meet the reasonable further progress milestones for the 

area, the timing of implementation of those measures, and the expected reductions in emissions 

of direct PM2.5 and the PM2.5 attainment plan precursors, NOx and SO2, as required by 40 CFR § 

51.1009(c). It does not address VOC controls or emissions reductions. 

The inventories used for comparing the baseline and future years are derived from the 

same geographic area and include emissions estimates for all types of emitting sources and 

activities in the geographic area from which the emissions inventories for direct PM2.5 and the 

EPA- Region 9 Page 107 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

PM2.5 attainment plan precursors that are addressed in the Plan (i.e., NOx and SO2) are derived 

as required by 40 CFR § 51.1009(f). 

In preparing its RFP demonstration, the District followed the procedures in by 40 CFR § 

51.1009(f) and correctly calculated its benchmark emissions levels based on the attainment 

emissions levels given in the Plan. 

The RFP demonstration in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan is based on the State’s current estimate of 

the emissions levels needed for attainment in the SJV. As discussed in section II.B. of this TSD, 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the air quality modeling in the Plan because there is insufficient 

documentation for us to determine its adequacy. Air quality modeling establishes the emissions 

levels needed for attainment in an area. Thus, uncertainties about the adequacy of the air quality 

modeling result in uncertainties about the emissions levels needed for attainment. These 

uncertainties also affect the RFP demonstrations because in order to determine what constitutes 

generally linear progress towards attainment in an area, we must first know the level of 

emissions that the area needs meet in order to attain. 

As discussed in Section II.C. of this TSD, EPA is proposing to find that VOC should be 

considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in the SJV. The PM2.5 implementation rule 

requires RFP plans to address each attainment plan precursor. The 2008 PM2.5 plan does not 

include an RFP demonstration for VOC. 

Using data from the Plan, we have evaluated how close the Plan’s projected controlled 

emissions levels come to the 2009 and 2012 benchmark emissions levels, both with and without 

the reserve for contingency measures. See Tables H-5 and H-6. As can be seen from these 

tables, projected emissions levels for direct PM2.5 are above and for NOx significantly above the 

2009 and 2012 benchmark emissions levels, both with and without the contingency reserve. 

Although SO2 levels are below the benchmarks in both years, the Plan does not provide any 

equivalency argument that the extra SO2 reductions will compensate for the excess direct PM2.5 

and NOx emissions. Given the comparatively small amount of SO2 emissions and minimal 

contribution such emissions make to overall PM2.5 levels in the Valley, we do not believe that 

excess reductions in SO2 can compensate for shortfall in PM2.5 and NOx reductions. See, for 

example, Figure 9-1 in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan where ammonium sulfate contributes approximately 

8 percent to the annual PM2.5 concentration compared to 48 percent for ammonium nitrate. 

The shortfall in RFP for NOx is especially problematic given the nature of the PM2.5 

nonattainment problem in the SJV. Ammonium nitrate contributes 40 percent of the Valley’s 

annual PM2.5 levels. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. H-12. Available information indicates that NOx is one 

of the limiting compounds in the reaction that forms ammonium nitrate, making NOx control an 

effective approach to reducing ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-1. Hence, 

these shortfalls in NOx emissions reductions in the RFP demonstration are likely to adversely 

affect progress in reducing ambient PM2.5 levels in the SJV. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 108 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table H-5 

Benchmark RFP Demonstration using Plan Data 

With Contingency Measure Reserve 

(tons per annual average day) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

2009 

Benchmark emissions level 75.9 449.1 25.6 

Contingency reserve 0.8 15.0 N/A 

Projected emissions level 78.2 498.5 26.3 

Projected emissions level with 

contingency reserve 79.0 513.5 26.3 

Emissions above benchmark emissions 

level 3.1 64.4 0.7 

Percent above benchmark emissions 

level 4.0% 14.3% 2.7% 

2012 

Benchmark emissions level 68.3 354.4 25.1 

Projected emissions level 70.3 415.8 22.7 

Contingency reserve 0.8 12.7 N/A 

Projected emissions level with 

contingency reserve 71.1 428.5 22.7 

Emissions above benchmark emissions 

level 2.8 74.1 -2.4 

Percent above benchmark emissions 

level 4.1% 20.9% -9.6% 

EPA- Region 9 Page 109 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table H-6 

Benchmark RFP Demonstration using Plan Data 

No Contingency Measure Reserve 

(tons per annual average day) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 

2009 

Benchmark emissions level 75.9 449.1 25.6 

Projected emissions level 78.2 498.5 26.3 

Emissions above benchmark emissions 

level 2.3 49.4 0.7 

Percent above benchmark emissions 

level 3.0% 11.0% 2.7% 

2012 

Benchmark emissions level 68.3 354.4 25.1 

Projected emissions level 70.3 415.8 22.7 

Emissions above benchmark emissions 

level 2.0 61.5 -2.4 

Percent above benchmark emissions 

level 2.9% 17.3% -9.6% 

Based on our proposed disapproval of the air quality modeling analysis and attainment 

demonstration, we are proposing to disapprove the RFP demonstration in the SJV PM2.5 Plan for 

failure to meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 40 CFR § 51.1009. We also note 

the lack of generally linear progress in NOx emissions reductions, especially in 2012, and the 

lack of an RFP demonstration for VOC. The District and State should address both these issues 

in any revisions to the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s RFP demonstration. 

Earthjustice Petition on the PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public 

health and environmental groups requesting reconsideration of several provisions in the PM2.5 

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

Clean Air Fine Particulate Implementation Rule,” June 25, 2007. Among these provisions is 

allowing states to use emissions reductions from outside of the nonattainment area to 

demonstration RFP (out-of-area RFP) as discussed in 72 FR 20586 at 20636. On May 13, 2010, 

EPA granted the petition with respect to this issue. See Letter, Gina McCarthy, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, EPA, to David Baron and Paul Cort, Earthjustice, May 13, 

2010. EPA is currently considering the other issues raised in the petition. The District did not 

rely on out-of-area emissions reductions in its RFP demonstration in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 110 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

I. Mid-Course Review 

1. Requirements for a Midcourse Review 

Under 40 CFR § 51.1011 of the PM2.5 implementation rule,a state with a PM2.5 

nonattainment area with an projected attainment date in 2014 or 2015 is required to submit a 

mid-course review (MCR) by April 2011. The MCR is in lieu of RFP milestone reviews or any 

other form of tracking to ensure reasonable progress in reducing emissions is occurring. See 

PM2.5 implementation rule at 20641. 

The specific elements that must be included in MCR are given in 40 CFR § 51.1011(b). 

These elements are: 

(1) a review of emissions reductions and progress made in implementing control 

measures to reduce emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 attainment plan precursors 

contributing to PM2.5 concentrations in the area; 

(2) an analysis of changes in ambient air quality data for the area; 

(3) revised air quality modeling analysis to demonstrate attainment; and 

(4) any new or revised control measures adopted by the state, as necessary to ensure 

attainment by the attainment date in the SIP. 

Neither the CAA nor EPA regulations require a state to address the midcourse review 

requirement in its attainment and RFP plans due in 2008. 

2. MCR Requirement in the SJV PM2.5 SIP 

In its resolution adopting the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, the SJVAPCD’s Governing Board 

acknowledges the requirement to prepare a mid-course review consistent with 40 CFR § 51.1011 

by April 2011. See SJVAPCD Governing Board Resolution, page 4. In its resolution adopting 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, CARB commits to submitting a MCR in 2011. See CARB Resolution 08­

28, May 22, 2008, p. 4. 

3. Conclusions 

SJVAPCD is already taking the initial steps necessary to prepare its PM2.5 MCR. EPA 

will work closely with the District, CARB, and other interested parties to assure that the MCR 

addresses the elements required by the PM2.5 implementation rule. We encourage both agencies 

to use the opportunity afforded by the MCR to address the proposed disapprovals of the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan and SJV portions of the revised 2007 State Strategy. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 111 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

J.	 Contingency Measures 

1.	 Requirements for Contingency Measures 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9), all PM2.5 attainment plans must include contingency 

measures to be implemented if an area fails to meet RFP (RFP contingency measures) and 

contingency measures to be implemented if an area fails to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date (attainment contingency measures). See 40 CFR § 51.1012. The 

purpose of contingency measures is to provide a cushion while the SIP is being revised to meet 

the missed RFP milestone or correct continuing nonattainment. 

The principle requirements for contingency measures are: 

•	 Contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are 

ready to be implemented quickly upon failure to meet RFP or failure of the area to 

meet the standard by its attainment date. 

•	 The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify 

a schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be 

implemented without further action by the state or by EPA In general, EPA will 

expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur 

within 60 days after EPA notifies the state of a failure. 

•	 The contingency measures should consist of other control measures for the area 

that are not included in the control strategy for the SIP. 

•	 The measures should provide for emissions reductions equivalent to about 1 year 

of reductions needed for RFP calculated as the overall level of reductions needed 

to demonstrate attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to 

the attainment year. 

See 72 FR 20586 at 20643. 

The April 16, 1992 General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498, 13512) provides the following guidance on 

contingency measures which continues to be applicable: 

States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented without further 

action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or 

legislative review. In general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect full 

implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its 

failure. 

Contingency measures can include both Federal and local measures already scheduled for 

implementation or already implemented. The CAA requires contingency measures provide for 

additional emissions reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment and that are not 

EPA- Region 9	 Page 112 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

included in these demonstrations. In other words, contingency measures are intended to achieve 

reductions over and beyond those relied on in the RFP and attainment demonstrations. Nothing 

in the Act precludes a state from implementing such measures before they are triggered. EPA 

has approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation. See, for example, 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 

1997) (direct final rule approving Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 

1997) (final rule approving Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final 

rule approving Rhode Island ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule 

approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP revisions); and 66 FR 634 

(January 3, 2001) (final rule approving Connecticut ozone SIP revision). 72 FR 20586 at 20642. 

A court has upheld this interpretation. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 5th Circuit, 2004. 72 

FR 20586 at 20642. 

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Contingency measures are described in Section 9.2.2. of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and are 

composed of two types: a new commitment to an action by the SJVAPCD and surplus 

reductions from adopted measures. In late 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted a further contingency 

provision as part of its wood burning rule, Rule 4901. 

CARB also discusses the contingency measure provision in Appendix D of the 2007 

State Strategy. This discussion is addresses the contingency measure provisions for California’s 

8-hour ozone plans and not the PM2.5 plans. 

a. New Commitment 

As a contingency measure, the District proposes to request through formal District 

Governing Board resolution at a regularly scheduled Governing Board hearing within two 

months after a finding by EPA of a failure to meet an RFP milestone that CARB accelerate the 

adoption and/or implementation of any remaining CARB control measures that have not yet been 

adopted or fully implemented, to the extent feasible. Potential emissions reductions from this 

proposed contingency measure are not quantified. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-7. 

b. Surplus Reductions from Adopted Measures 

Ozone Nonattainment Fee - Rule 3170 (Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee) requires 

major stationary sources in the District to pay an emissions-based fee should the area fail to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its applicable statutory deadline. As a contingency measure, 

the District would use the funds collected to implement other pollution control programs. In its 

discussion on this measure, the District emphasizes that inclusion of Rule 3170 as a contingency 

measure for PM2.5 does not imply it expects the area to fail to timely attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-8. This measure could only be a contingency measure for 

the RFP milestone year of 2012 (since the Rule would not be implemented prior to 1-hour ozone 

attainment date of November 15, 2010 ) and the attainment year. Potential reductions are not 

quantified. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 113 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Incentive Funds -- The District expects to receive and spend significant incentive-based funding 

to reduce emissions from sources in the SJV. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Section 6.5. Most of these 

emissions reductions were not used in RFP or attainment demonstrations in this Plan for various 

reasons, mainly related to their current SIP creditability. 

In April 2007, the District’s Governing Board adopted a resolution committing to 

implement various procedural, record keeping, and reporting requirements to ensure that the all 

incentive-based reductions achieved by the District meet EPA requirements and guidance for SIP 

creditability. At the time the Plan was submitted in 2008, the District expected these 

requirements would be in place in time for the 2009 and 2012 RFP milestone years so that the 

emissions reductions from its various incentive programs could be used to meet the contingency 

measure requirement. 

The District estimates that there are $90 million per year of incentive funds already 

available to the SJV and these could provide 3.6 tpd of NOx emissions each year, accumulating 

year to year (that is, after five years, for example, the cumulative reduction would be 18 tpd). 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 9-9. 

Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration -- The methods used in Chapter 8 of the Plan to 

calculate emissions reductions needed to meet RFP benchmarks withheld a certain percentage of 

those reductions for contingency purposes: 1% of the baseline PM2.5 inventory and 3% of the 

baseline NOx inventory. These percentages equate to roughly 1 tpd PM2.5 and 17 tpd NOx 

reserved for contingency. No reserve was included for SO2 because SO2 emissions levels were 

projected to be below the applicable benchmarks. See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 8-4. 

Post-2014 Emissions Reductions -- The 2008 PM2.5 Plan relies on the incremental emissions 

reductions that will occur in 2015 from CARB’s mobile source program to provide for 

contingency measures for failure to attain. See p. 9-9. The Plan does not provide an estimate of 

that these reductions. CARB estimates the NOx reductions at 21 tpd in 2015. See CARB Staff 

Report, p. 29. 

c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules 

On October 16, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4307, Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBTU). These revisions lowered NOx limits, added 

SO2 and PM10 limits, and removed certain exemptions. While the District included these 

revisions as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s control strategy, it did not estimate or include 

emissions reductions from this measures in either the RFP or attainment demonstrations. 

Because of this, the reductions from this measure could be considered excess to these 

demonstrations. 

On October 16, 2008, the SJVAPCD also adopted revisions to its wood burning rule, 

Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplace and Wood Burning Heaters, to incorporate a contingency 

provision in section 5.6.5. This provision states that: 

EPA- Region 9 Page 114 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

On or after sixty days following the effective date of EPA final rulemaking that the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin has failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards by the applicable deadline, the [air pollution control officer] shall 

notify the public of an Episodic Curtailment for a geographic region whenever a PM2.5 

concentration of 20 μg/m3 or greater or a PM10 concentration of 135 μg/m3 is predicted 

for the geographic region. 

This provision lowers the trigger for calling an episodic curtailment from 30 μg/m3

. 

During an episodic curtailment, the operation of wood burning fireplaces, wood burning heater, 

or outdoor wood burning device (except when it is the sole source of heat) is prohibited. See 

Rule 4901, section 5.6.1. In its supporting documentations for this rule, the District did not 

quantify the emissions reductions expected should this contingency provision be triggered. 

The District is scheduled to adopt revisions to Rule 4702, Internal Combustion (I/C) 

Engines – Phase 2, in December, 2010. These revisions would lower the applicability threshold 

of the rule to engines 25 hp and greater (from 50 hp) and lower NOx, VOC, and carbon 

monoxide limits for all spark-ignition I/C engines that are used in non-agricultural operations. 

These limits would be effective January 1, 2014. See SJVAPCD, Draft Staff Report For Draft 

Amendments To Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines – Phase 2), September 9, 2010. 

While the District included these revisions as part of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s control strategy, it 

did not estimate or include emissions reductions from this measures in either the RFP or 

attainment demonstrations. Because of this, the reductions from this measure could be 

considered excess to these demonstrations. 

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 

a. New Commitment 

CARB’s measures are primarily aimed at reducing emissions from mobile source. 

Accelerating their implementation to correct shortfalls in RFP and attainment would be 

appropriate given the contribution of mobile sources to PM2.5 standard exceedances in the SJV 

and the importance of mobile source measures to reducing those violations. However, the 

process outlined in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan would require multiple steps to implement including the 

adopting of a resolution by the SJVAPCD’s governing board and rulemaking by CARB. Such a 

process would likely take more than a few months to complete. 

Under CAA section 172(c)(9) and EPA’s long-standing policies interpreting this section, 

contingency measures must require minimal additional rulemaking by the state and take effect 

within a few months of a failure to meet an RFP target or to attain. The District’s proposed 

commitment to request accelerated implementation of CARB’s measures meets neither of these 

requirements and thus does not qualify as a contingency measures under the CAA. 

b. Surplus Reductions from Adopted Measures 

Ozone Nonattainment Area Fees - The CAA’s requirement for contingency measure requires that 

they be triggered if an area fails to make RFP or fails to attain by its statutory deadline. For the 

EPA- Region 9 Page 115 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

PM2.5 plan, contingency measures are required to be triggered by failures to make RFP or to 

attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. The implementation of SJVAPCD’s Rule 3170 is triggered solely by a 

failure to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. See Rule 3170. Should the rule’s requirements be 

implemented and the collected fees used toward reducing emissions, then the District may rely 

on the resulting reductions to fulfill the contingency measure requirement for the PM2.5 Plan to 

the extent that the reductions meet SIP creditability requirements. Given that the rule is not 

currently implemented and such implementation cannot be triggered by an RFP/attainment 

failure related to the PM2.5 standards, it cannot be used as a contingency measure for 2008 PM2.5 

Plan. 

Incentive Funds - As noted previously, the District has several incentive programs that have the 

potential to generate considerable emissions reductions. While neither the CAA nor EPA policy 

bar the use of emissions reductions from incentive programs to meet all or part of an area’s 

contingency measure obligation, the incentive programs must assure that the reductions are 

surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent as required by EPA guidance. See “Improving 

Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,” EPA-452/R-01-001 (January 2001). As noted 

above, while the District has adopted a resolution committing to implement these requirements, 

it has not yet implemented them. As a result, reduction from these incentives program, to the 

extent that they are not already SIP-creditable, cannot currently be used for contingency measure 

purposes. 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not identify the incentive grant programs expected to generate 

the emissions reductions programs, nor the quantity of these emissions reductions, that the 

District intends to use to meet the contingency measure requirement. Therefore, we are unable 

to determine if they are SIP creditable or sufficient to provide the one-year’s worth of RFP 

needed. For these reasons, this proposed measure does not currently meet the CAA requirements 

for contingency measures. 

One of the incentive program listed in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan’s contingency measure 

discussion is the State’s Carl Moyer Program. We note that reductions from the Moyer program 

are already incorporated into the Plan’s baseline inventory and thus are already relied on in the 

RFP and attainment demonstrations and therefore cannot operate as contingency measures. See 

Table B-2 in the December 4, 2007 Draft of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan and State Strategy, Appendix 

A, pp. 1, 95, and 101. 

Surplus Reductions in the RFP Demonstration - As discussed above in section II.E., we are 

proposing to disapprove the RFP demonstration in part because we are unable to determine if the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan provides for RFP because of issues with the air quality modeling. We have also 

identified concerns with the lack of an RFP demonstration for VOC and a shortfall in NOx 

emissions reductions needed to show generally linear progress toward attainment. Because of 

these issues, we cannot determine, at this time, if there are any excess reductions of direct PM2.5 

and NOx emissions in the RFP demonstration that can be used for RFP contingency measures. 

Post-2014 Emissions Reductions - Additional emissions reductions resulting from fleet turnover 

in the 2015 and later may be used to meet the contingency measure requirement for failure to 

attain. CARB provides estimates for NOx reductions in 2015 from its existing (baseline) mobile 

EPA- Region 9 Page 116 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

source program but did not provide reductions for PM2.5 and SOx. These estimates do not 

include any additional incremental reductions expected from the 2007 State Strategy. 

c. Adopted or Scheduled for Adoption Rules 

We believe the contingency provisions in section 5.6.6 of Rule 4901 fully meet CAA 

requirements for contingency measures. The provision can be implemented with no additional 

rulemaking on the part of the District and must be implemented within 60 days of an EPA 

finding that the area has failed to attain the PM2.5 standards. We approved the October 2008 

revision of Rule 4901, including the contingency provision, into the California SIP on November 

10, 2009, 74 FR 57907. 

As discussed above in sections II.E., and II.H., we are proposing to disapprove the RFP 

and attainment demonstrations in part because we are unable to determine if the 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

provides for RFP and attainment. We have also identified a concern with a shortfall in NOx 

emissions reductions needed to show the generally linear progress toward attainments as is 

required to demonstrate RFP. Because of these issues, we cannot determine if there are any 

excess NOx emissions reductions in the RFP and attainment demonstrations that can be used for 

RFP and/or attainment contingency measures. Although the District did not include reductions 

from the revisions to Rules 4307 and 4702 in Plan’s RFP and attainment demonstrations, we 

believe that any reductions from these rules (to the extent they occur in or prior to 2014) should 

first be used to meet the RFP and expeditious attainment requirements.27 

Under the PM2.5 implementation rule, a state must submit contingency measures that 

meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and provide for the equivalent of roughly one 

year’s worth of RFP. One year’s worth of RFP is determined by the emissions reductions from 

the base year baseline inventory (the base year is 2005 for SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan) divided by the 

number of years between the base year and the attainment year (2014). 72 FR 20586 at 20643. 

These calculations are is given in Table J-1 below for direct PM2.5 and for the PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors, NOx and SO2, and for all pollutants taken together. They are based on the 

current estimates of the emissions reductions needed for attainment. These estimates are derived 

from air quality modeling that EPA is proposing to disapprove and thus subject to change. See 

section II. B. 

As can be seen from Table J-2, emissions reductions from a number of the potentially 

approvable (or approved in the case of Rule 4901) contingency measures were not quantified. 

Total reductions from the measures that were quantified fall short the level currently estimated to 

be needed to meet the contingency measure requirement. 

27 Rule 4307 includes emission limits that do not apply until after 2014. Reductions from these post-2014 

limits are creditable as contingency measures to the extent these provision provide for additional emissions 

reductions above those relied on for attainment 

EPA- Region 9 Page 117 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Table J-1 

Reductions Needed from Contingency Measures 

(tons per average annual day) 

PM2.5 NOx SO2 Combined 

A 2005 baseline 86.0 575.4 26.4 687.8 

B 2014 attainment 

level 63.3 291.2 24.6 378.1 

C 

Emissions 

reductions 

needed for 

attainment 

(A-B) 

22.7 284.2 1.8 308.7 

D One year’s RFP 

(C/9) 2.5 31.6 0.2 34.3 

E 

One year’s RFP 

as percent of 

2005 baseline 

2.9% 5.5% 0.8% 5.0% 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes suggestions for several potentially approvable contingency 

measures as well as several measures that do not meet the CAA’s minimum requirements (e.g., 

no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP needs). The Plan, however, neither 

provides sufficient information for us to determine if the emissions reductions from some of the 

approvable measures are SIP creditable (e.g., those from incentive grant programs) nor quantifies 

the expected emissions reductions so we can gauge if they provide reductions roughly equivalent 

to the current estimate of one year’s worth of RFP. We, therefore, propose to disapprove the 

RFP and attainment contingency measures in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan pursuant to CAA section 

172(c)(9) and 40 CFR § 51.1012. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 118 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Table J-2 

Summary of Approvability of Contingency Measures from the SJV 2008 P

Measure 

RFP or 

Attainment 

Contingency 

Measure? 

Approvable as 

a Contingency 

Measure? 

Comment 

Tons per A

Year PM2.5 

Request CARB to expedite implementation of mobile source controls 

Both No 

Requires additional rulemaking, no short term reductions 

Ozone Nonattainment Area Fee 

2012 RFP 

milestone/ 

Attainment 

No 

Not triggered by failure to make RFP or attain for the PM2.5 standards 

Incentives Funds – currently SIP creditable Both Yes Incentive Funds – currently not SIP creditable 

Both No Reductions are not SIP creditable 

Excess Reductions in RFP Demonstration RFP No 

Unknown if there are excess reductions in RFP demonstration. 

2009 0 

2012 0 

“New” Post Attainment Year Reductions Attainment Yes 2015 0.71 

Rule 4307 

2012 RFP 

milestone/ 

Attainment 

No 

Unknown if there are excess reductions in RFP and attainment demonstrations 

2012 - 2014 - 

Rule 4702 Attainment No 

Unknown if there are excess reductions in the attainment demonstration 

2014 - 

Rule 4901 Attainment Yes 2015 1.63 

1 Calculated as the difference in total emissions in the on-road mobile and other mobile sources categories between 2015 and 

100 (PM2.5) and page 103 (SOx). Values are in tons per summer planning day. 

2 From CARB Staff report on the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, p. 29. 3 Phone conversation, Jessi Fierro, SJVAPCD, and Frances Wicher, EPA, August 26, 2010, value is average winter day. 

EPA- Region 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

K. Interpollutant Trading among Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Attainment Plan 

Precursors 

EPA has issued an implementation rule establishing the requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) programs in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. See 73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008) (PM2.5 

NSR rule). Under the PM2.5 NSR rule, during the interim period after designation of an area as 

nonattainment but before a state has amended its NSR SIP to address PM2.5, the NSR permitting 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S apply for PM2.5 purposes.28 40 CFR 52.24(k); 73 

FR 28321 at 28342. These Appendix S requirements currently apply in the SJV area. 

The NSR program requires, among other things, that new or modifying major stationary 

sources offset significant net emission increases with creditable emissions reductions. 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix S, section IV.A.3. Under Appendix S, section IV.G.5, these offset 

requirements may currently be satisfied by offsetting reductions of direct PM2.5 emissions. They 

may also be satisfied by offsetting reductions of emissions of a PM2.5 precursor (i.e., by an 

interpollutant trade) only if such offsets comply with an interprecursor trading hierarchy and 

ratio approved by the Administrator. That is, a new PM2.5 emission source is allowed to offset 

its direct PM2.5 and/or PM2.5 precursor emission increases with reductions in other PM2.5 

precursor emissions only in accordance with a trading ratio approved by EPA.29 

The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble states that precursors that are significant contributors to 

PM2.5 concentrations should be considered regulated NSR pollutants. 73 FR 28321 at 28326. It 

then describes significant contribution in the same terms as are used in the PM2.5 implementation 

rule, namely that emissions reductions of the precursor would be projected to provide a 

significant change in PM2.5 concentrations in the area. See 72 FR 20586 at 20590 and 73 FR 

28321 at 28326. The two rules also have the same presumption, for essentially the same reasons, 

that SO2 and NOx should be considered precursors, whereas ammonia and VOC should not. See 

72 FR 20586 at 20590-20596 and 73 FR 28321 at 28326-28331. 

In order for precursors to be eligible for NSR interpollutant offset trading in a PM2.5 

nonattainment area, the area’s PM2.5 SIP must state which combinations of pollutants are eligible 

for interpollutant trading. It must also define and provide the basis for the trading ratios between 

them that will be used for interpollutant offsets. In the 73 FR 28321 at 28339, EPA stated that: 

[T]he final rules allow interpollutant trading [for offset purposes] only based on a 

trading ratio established in the SIP as part of the attainment demonstration 

approved for a specific nonattainment area.... [T]he final rules do not allow 

interpollutant trading on a case-by-case basis as part of an individual 

[nonattainment area] NSR permitting process. ... If States choose to develop 

28 A state with a PM2.5 nonattainment area is required to submit NSR SIP revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the PM2.5 NSR rule by May 16, 2011. 73 FR at 28342. 

29 Note that several provisions of the PM2.5 NSR rule are currently under reconsideration, including EPA’s 

preferred interpollutant trading ratios. See Letter dated April 24, 2009, from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, EPA, 

to Paul R. Cort, Earthjustice; 74 FR 26098 (June 1, 2009); 74 FR 36427 (July 23, 2009); 74 FR 48153 (September 

22, 2009); and 75 FR 6827 (February 11, 2010). 

EPA- Region 9 Page 120 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

their own hierarchies/trading ratios, they will have to substantiate by modeling 

and/or other technical demonstrations of the net air quality benefit for PM2.5 

ambient concentrations, and such a trading program will have to be approved by 

EPA. 

Hierarchy refers to an identification of which combinations of pollutants are eligible for trading, 

e.g. SO2 for primary PM2.5, SO2 for NOx, etc. 

EPA completed a technical assessment to develop preferred interpollutant trading ratios 

that may be used for the purposes of PM2.5 offsets, where appropriate.30 Based on this 

assessment, EPA disallowed trading directly between NOx and SO2 and set preferred trading 

ratios at 100:1 for NOx to primary PM2.5 trades and 40:1 for SO2 to primary PM2.5 trades. See 73 

FR 28321 at 28339. The PM2.5 NSR rule preamble also states at 28340 that: 

th[e] rule allows interpollutant and interprecursor trading of offsets according to a 

SIP-approved trading program. To be approved, the trading program must either 

adopt EPA’s recommended trading ratios or be supported by regional-scale 

modeling that demonstrates a net air quality benefit using appropriate overall 

offset ratios for such trades for a specified nonattainment area, state, or multi-state 

region. 

The 73 FR 28321 at 28339 describes factors that should be considered by a state in 

developing area-specific ratios. 

In summary, interpollutant trades for purposes of meeting the NSR offset requirement for 

PM2.5 emissions are permissible only in accordance with trading ratios established in the SIP as 

part of the attainment demonstration approved for the nonattainment area. The SIP must 

explicitly identify which precursors are regulated NSR pollutants, which combinations are 

eligible for interpollutant trading, and the trading ratios between the pollutants. A states may 

either adopt EPA’s recommended trading ratios (73 FR 28321 at 28339) or seek to establish 

alternative ratios, using modeling and/or other technical demonstrations showing that the trading 

ratios provide a net air quality benefit, which must then be approved by EPA. The state must 

established these ratios as part of an approved attainment demonstration for the area; EPA will 

not allow case-by-case demonstrations on an individual source permit basis. 

The SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan does not explicitly identify PM2.5 precursors that are subject to 

NSR permitting. The Plan states, however, that: 

[SJVAPCD] Rule 2201 [New and Modified Stationary Source Review] allows the 

use of interpollutant trading amongst criteria pollutants and their precursors upon 

the appropriate scientific demonstration of an adequate trading ratio. These caps 

[on the use of pre-baseline credits] also apply to the use of VOC, NOx, and SOx 

30 These factors are in addition to the overall goal of the NSR permitting to show net air quality benefit and 

the underlying rationale for offsets to provide progress toward NAAQS attainment while allowing new sources to be 

constructed and existing sources to expand. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 121 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

[emission reduction credits] in their application as offsets for direct emissions and 

in their use as PM2.5 precursor interpollutant offsets. 

See 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, p. D-4. 

It appears from this discussion that the District considers VOC, NOx, and SO2 to be 

regulated NSR pollutants for PM2.5 NSR purposes and that the District intends to allow for 

interpollutant trading to satisfy PM2.5 permit requirements.31 The SJV PM2.5 Plan does not, 

however, provide a technical demonstration to support any conclusion as to the precursor 

combinations that should be eligible for interpollutant trading or the appropriate trading ratio for 

use in NSR permitting for PM2.5. It also appears from the Plan (at Appendix D, p. D-4) that the 

District intends to allow for interpollutant trades to satisfy PM2.5 offset requirements on a caseby-case basis, which is not permissible under the PM2.5 NSR rule. If the District intends to seek 

EPA approval of alternative interpollutant offset ratios for purposes of meeting PM2.5 NSR offset 

requirements, it must submit an adequate technical demonstration to support its proposed ratios, 

together with an approvable attainment demonstration, consistent with EPA regulatory 

requirements. 

31 This identification of VOC as an regulated NSR pollutant for PM2.5 is contrary to the District’s 

assertions in the Plan that controls on VOC sources are not important for PM2.5 attainment but supports EPA’s 

proposal to determine that VOC should be considered a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in addition to NOx and SO2. 

See section II.C. above. 

EPA- Region 9 Page 122 
Appendix A – CARB Rules and Measures
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

A. Complete List of State Measures 

Appendix Table A-1 is a list of all measures adopted by CARB from 1990 until the end 

of 2006. This period covers the 18 years prior to the development of the 2007 State Strategy and 

the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The table should include any substantive rules that would still be 

generating emissions reductions in the San Joaquin Valley during the 2005-2014 period covered 

by the Plan and thus reflected in the baseline for the Plan. 

This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State’s inspection and maintenance program adopted 

by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair. 

Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., 

permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address particulate matter or a PM2.5 

attainment plan precursor in the SJV (e.g., asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do 

not affect emissions in the SJV (e.g., test methods). 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500­

94506 11/09/89 Consumer products 

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable 

Emission Control System Warranty. T 13, CCR, 

2035-2041, 1977 12/14/89 On-road 

Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 

94003 17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 

94139, 94140 

01/11/90 Not applicable 

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 

27156 & 38391 02/08/90 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable 

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. 

T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not applicable 

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide 

from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicable 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802-90803 05/10/90 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300­

93347 

06/14/90 Not applicable 

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD. 

T 17, CCR, 94520-94526 06/14/90 Consumer products 

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient 

Air Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable 

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 

13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 

2139 

06/14/90 On-road 

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Fuels 

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Medical Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable 

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not applicable 

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable 

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On-road 

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600-70601 08/09/90 Not applicable 

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700­

90704, 93300-93347 

09/13/90 Not applicable 

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase 

I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels 

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 

and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 

09/28/90 On-road 

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable 

Phase I - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507­

94517 10/11/90 Consumer products 

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable 

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90 On-road 

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 

60200-60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable 

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. 

seq. 

12/13/90 Not applicable 

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and 

Garden Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Off-road 

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not applicable 

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Fuels 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not applicable 

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not applicable 

Non -Vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94131, 

94132, 94142 

04/11/91 Not applicable 

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable 

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 

80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable 

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel 

Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 

26, 93000 

08/08/91 Not applicable 

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and 

Light & Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1977, 1968.1 

09/12/91 On-road 

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicable 

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable 

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 

1977 11/12/91 On-road 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable 

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising 

reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and 

adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission 

vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 

11/14/91 On-road 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, 

CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels 

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel. 

T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 

2292.3, 2292.5, 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 

1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 

12/12/91 Fuels 

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420-2427 01/09/92 Off-road 

Phase II - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 

94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507 ­

94513, 94515 

01/09/92 Consumer products 

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable 

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels. 

T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 1960.1(k), 

1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 

03/12/92 On-road 

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303, 

70304 05/14/92 Not applicable 

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel 

Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On-road 

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicable 

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not applicable 

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 On-road 

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems. T 

13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable 

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test 

Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11/12/92 On-road 

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer 

Products. T 17, CCR, 94507 - 94517 11/30/92 Consumer products 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of 

Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 

17, & 26, CCR, 93107 

12/10/92 Not applicable 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 

70303.5, 60200-60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable 

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty 

Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190­

2194, 2180-2187, 1956.8(b) 

12/10/92 On-road 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Certification Requirements for Low Emission 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty 

Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 

01/14/93 On-road 

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not applicable 

1-year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards 

for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403-2407 04/08/93 Off-road 

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not applicable 

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants 

as Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

93001, 39665, 39666 

04/08/93 Not applicable 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300­

93347 

06/10/93 Not applicable 

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 

2112 06/10/93 On-road 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/08/93 Not applicable 

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 On-road 

Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 

70600 08/12/93 Not applicable 

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Fuels 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

93109, 93110 

10/14/93 Not applicable 

Diesel Fuel Regulations - Emergency. T 13, CCR, 

2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Fuels 

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not applicable 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200­

60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300-70306 11/18/93 Not applicable 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

2410-2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 Off-road 

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test 

Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 On-road 

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not applicable 

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 

2261, 2262-2270 06/09/94 Fuels 

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Fuels 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/28/94 Not applicable 

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. 

T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Off-road 

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 

17, CCR, 94540-94555 09/22/94 Consumer products 

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Fuels 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not applicable 

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & 

Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180­

2187, 1956.8(b) 

11/09/94 On-road 

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, 

& Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On-road 

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 

2190 12/08/94 On-road 

Specification for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels 

(M100). T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels 

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control 

Plan. T 17, CCR, 94520-94528, 94540-94543, 

94547... 

03/23/95 Consumer products 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable 

Employee-Based Trip Reductions Emission 

Formula. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94010-94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On-road 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 

13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test 

procedures 

06/29/95 On-road 

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 

2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On-road 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer 

Products, and Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, 

CCR, 94500-94506, 94508, 94521 

09/28/95 Consumer products 

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and 

incorporate test procedures 

09/28/95 On-road 

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Fuels 

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control 

Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates 

testing procedures. 

11/16/95 Fuels 

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 

2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels 

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable 

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels 

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission 

Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and 

incorporating test procedures 

01/25/96 Off-road 

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 

13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On-road 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable 

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave 

Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 

60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 

05/30/96 Not applicable 

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 

93301-93355, Appendix A-E (emissions inventory) 05/30/96 Not applicable 

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel 

additives). T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels 

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. 

T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not applicable 

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 

94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & 

Off-Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off-road 

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods . T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) 

and (g) 

10/24/96 Fuels 

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer 

Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test 

Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 

94526 

11/21/96 Consumer products 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not applicable 

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517, 

94321 

11/21/96 Consumer products 

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not applicable 

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 

13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 On-road 

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 

17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Consumer products 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit 

Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Fuels 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450-2465 03/27/97 Off-road 

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air 

Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not applicable 

Interchangeable Emissions Reduction Credits. T 

17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not applicable 

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission 

Requirements for Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle 

Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate 

test procedures 

05/22/97 On-road 

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products 

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and 

incorporate test procedures 

07/24/97 On-road 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 

17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 

13, CCR, 2180-2188 and 2190-2194 

12/11/97 On-road 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not applicable 

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400,2410-2414 03/26/98 Off-road 

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090­

60095 04/23/98 Not applicable 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test 

procedures 

04/23/98 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome 

Plating. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, 

CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 

2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 

08/27/98 Fuels 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94010-94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 

94159, 94160, 94162 

08/27/98 Vapor Recovery 

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable 

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 

13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels 

Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable 

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300­

70306, 70303.1 

10/22/98 Not applicable 

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. 

T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Off-road 

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 

- 94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 

94137 and revision of Method 12. 

10/22/98 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and 

Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, 

CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 

1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 

2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137-2140, 

2143-2148 

11/05/98 On-road 

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2476 11/19/98 Off-road 

Consumer Products - LVP-VOC Definitions And 

Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 

94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the 

amendment of ARB Method 310 

11/19/98 Consumer products 

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 

94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 

11/19/98 Consumer products 

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 

2415 

12/10/98 Off-road 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 

Marine Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off-road 

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 

13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On-road 

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Off-road 

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98 On-road 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 

2265(a)(2) 

12/11/98 Fuels 

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a 

Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump 

Labeling for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273 

06/24/99 Fuels 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test 

procedures, CP-201, TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6 

06/24/99 Vapor Recovery 

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On-road 

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2478 09/23/99 Off-road 

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60040 and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

California Consumer Products Regulation MidTerm Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 

94513 

10/28/99 Consumer products 

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicable 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 

2261, 2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 

2266 etc... 

12/09/99 Fuels 

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 

2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & 

appendix A to article 2.1. 

01/27/00 Off-road 

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On-road 

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 

Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 

80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 

170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 

80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 

80320, 80330 

03/23/00 Not applicable 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

(Emergency Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, 

CCR, 94011 

03/23/00 Vapor Recovery 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In 

Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011 

03/23/00 Vapor Recovery 

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic 

Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance 

and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 

04/27/00 Other 

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control 

Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products 

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 

94700, 94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products 

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing 

Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable 

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 

95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable 

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 

17, CCR, 80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products 

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicable 

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 

2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 

2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 

11/16/00 Fuels 

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" 

Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On-road 

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust 

Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 

12/07/00 On-road 

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated 

Test Procedure 

01/25/01 On-road 

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 

70600 04/26/01 Not applicable 

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and 

Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging 

Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface 

Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 

07/26/01 Not applicable 

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 

2139, 2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 

2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of 

documents by reference 

07/26/01 Off-road 

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile 

Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent 

Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR, 

93112 

09/20/01 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90700-90705 10/25/01 Not applicable 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods 

and Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 

94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & 

incorporated procedures 

10/25/01 Vapor Recovery 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and 

Later. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test 

procedures 

10/25/01 On-road 

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 Other 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects. T 17, 

CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 

11/15/01 Vapor Recovery 

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test 

procedures and guidelines 

11/15/01 On-road 

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. 

T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other 

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 

2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607-2610 

02/21/02 On-road 

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 

13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On-road 

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty 

and In-Use Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

2700-2710 

05/16/02 On-road 

Review of California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, 

CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 

06/20/02 Not applicable 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 

2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 

07/25/02 Fuels 

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 

2112, & documents incorporated by reference 

10/24/02 On-road 

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, 

CCR, 60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 

2480 

12/12/02 On-road 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase 

Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 

2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 

12/12/02 Fuels 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures. 

T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 

94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, 

and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 

12/12/02 Vapor Recovery 

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas 

Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor 

administrative changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 

1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents 

incorporated by reference 

12/12/02 On-road 

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 

13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, 

and documents incorporated by reference 

03/25/03 On-road 

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable 

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 

2415 07/24/03 Off-road 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 

90801, 90802, and 90803 

07/24/03 Not applicable 

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 

& T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 

93114, and incorporated test procedure 

07/24/03 Fuels 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 

2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On-road 

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400-2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 

2754.1, 2754.2, 2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and 

the documents incorporated by reference 

09/25/03 Off-road 

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 & 2477 

12/11/03 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 

& documents incorporate by reference 

12/11/03 Other 

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty 

and In-Use Compliance Requirements 

(Amendments). T 13, CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 On-road 

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations 

for State PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 

60210 

01/22/04 Not applicable 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 1969 01/22/04 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 

93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 

02/26/04 Off-road 

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, 

CCR Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 

2466 

02/26/04 Off-road 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, 

CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, 

and 2194 

03/27/04 On-road 

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System 

Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model 

Heavy Duty Engines. T 13, CCR, 1971 

05/20/04 On-road 

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for 

Para-Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 

94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 

94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is 

incorporated by reference 

06/24/04 Consumer products 

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle 

Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 

07/22/04 On-road 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery 

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, 

CCR, 94011 

07/22/04 Vapor Recovery 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated 

document 

08/24/04 Vapor Recovery 

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 

and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On-road 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, 

CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 

2263, 2265 (and the incorporated “California 

Procedures”), and 2266.5 

11/18/04 Fuels 

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & 

Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 

2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 

11/18/04 Fuels 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification 

procedure 

11/18/04 Vapor Recovery 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 

90803 

11/18/04 Not applicable 

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of 

Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 

17, CCR, 93102.5 

12/09/04 Not applicable 

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off-road 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 

60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not applicable 

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 

2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 

1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 

02/24/05 On-road 

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115 

05/26/05 Other 

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 

17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable 

On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 

2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty 

Engines (HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1 

07/21/05 On-road 

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 

13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels 

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus 

Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 

13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 

09/15/05 On-road 

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 

2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 

2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Off road 

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road 

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from 

New and In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, 

CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 

10/20/05 On-road 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road 

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 

2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 

2447, and incorporated document 

11/17/05 Off-road 

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric 

Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, 

CCR, 93118 

12/08/05 Off-road 

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned 

or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 

12/08/05 On-road 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off-road 

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 

2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 

01/26/06 On-road 

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable 

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. 

T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 

2709. 

03/23/06 On-road 

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, 

CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 

05/25/06 On-road 

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large 

Off-Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, 

CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 

2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 

2788, and 2789. 

05/26/06 Off-road 

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. 

T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On-road 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 

94011 and incorporated certification 

06/22/06 Vapor Recovery 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 

2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 

and 2465 

06/22/06 Off-road 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 

13, CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents 

incorporated by reference 

07/20/06 Off-road 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-1 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Category 

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated 

by reference 

09/28/06 On-road 

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 

1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On-road 

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 

94207-942142 

10/19/06 Other 

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On-road 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and 

document incorporated by reference 

11/16/06 Not applicable 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

and Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration 

(amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119 

11/16/06 Off-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, 

Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR, 

93115.1-93115.15.t. 

11/16/06 Other 

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 

60210 

11/16/06 Not applicable 

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 

94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer products 

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment 

Registration Program, Airborne Toxic Control 

Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 

CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 

12/06/06 Off-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome 

Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 

17, CCR, 93102.1-93102.16 

12/07/06 Not applicable 

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 

13, CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D 12/07/06 On-road 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

B. State Rules that Do Not Address direct PM2.5 or PM2.5 Attainment Plan 

Precursors in the San Joaquin Valley 

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect direct 

PM2.5 or a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. These types of 

measures include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, 

and controls for pollutants other than direct PM2.5 (or PM), NOx, VOC, or SO2. Appendix Table 

A-2 provides a list of these measures. 

Appendix Table A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 

94003 17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 

94139, 94140 

01/11/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. 

T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not a PM emissions reduction measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802-90803 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Medical Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not a PM emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300­

93347 

06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient 

Air Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600-70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700­

90704, 93300-93347 

09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 

60200-60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. 

seq. 

12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non -Vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Non - Vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94131, 

94132, 94142 

04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction 

measure. 

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure. Obsolete. 

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 

80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel 

Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 

26, 93000 

08/08/91 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303, 

70304 05/14/92 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure 

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems. T 

13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not a PM or PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors emissions 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

reduction measure 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 

70303.5, 60200-60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants 

as Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

93001, 39665, 39666 

04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300­

93347 

06/10/93 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 

70600 08/12/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 

93109, 93110 

10/14/93 Not a PM or ozone control 

measure (perc is not a VOC) 

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200­

60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300-70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction measure 

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not a SJV control measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/28/94 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Employee-Based Trip Reductions Emission 

Formula. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission 

Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and 

incorporating test procedures 

01/25/96 Carbon monoxide requirement 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave 

Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 

60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 

05/30/96 Not applicable to SJV 

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 

93301-93355, Appendix A-E (emissions inventory) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. 

T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 

94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air 

Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Interchangeable Emissions Reduction Credits. T 

17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700-90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations '97 . T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 

60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090­

60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome 

Plating. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 

- 94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 

94137 and revision of Method 12. 

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60040 and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300­

70306, 70303.1 

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 

Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 

80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 

170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 

80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 

80320, 80330 

03/23/00 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing 

Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 

Not a PM or PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors emissions 

reduction measure 

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 

95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 

17, CCR, 80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 

Not a SJV control measure 

(Sacramento Valley air basin 

only) 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 

70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90700-90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Review of California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, 

CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 

06/20/02 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, 

CCR, 60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 

90801, 90802, and 90803 

07/24/03 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-2 

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

That Do Not Address PM2.5 in the San Joaquin Valley 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations 

for State PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 

60210 

01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 

90803 

11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 

60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction measure 

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 

17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction measure 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and 

document incorporated by reference 

11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 

60210 

11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction 

measure 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

C. State Fuel Measures 

ARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean 

diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel 

standards for off-road sources. Appendix Table A-3 is a list of these revisions. 

Appendix Table A-3 

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2255 06/21/90 

Renumbered to section 2281. 

Approved 60 FR 43379 

(8/21/95) 

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2256 12/13/90 

Renumbered to section 2282. 

Approved 60 FR 43379 

(8/21/95) (listed as 4/15/01 

adoption in FR) 

Diesel Fuel Regulations - Emergency. T 13, CCR, 

2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 

(8/21/95) 

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10) 

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 

& T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 

93114, and incorporated test procedure 

07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 

(5/12/10) 

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of 

Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired 

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & 

Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 

2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 

11/18/04 

NOx reductions estimated at 0.1 

tpd for SJV. See CARB 6/29/09 

Letter 

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase 

I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996. Obsolete. 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, 

CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 

2261, 2262-2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules 

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 

Section 2251.5 - obsolete; 

section 2258 wintertime; section 

2263, superseded 

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control 

measure 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-3 

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules 

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control 

Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates 

testing procedures. 

11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules 

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 

2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules 

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules 

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel 

additives). T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Repealed sections 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, 

CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 

2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 

08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules 

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 

13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 

2265(a)(2) 

12/11/98 

Wintertime gasoline for South 

Coast and Imperial County. Not 

applicable to the SJV area. 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling 

for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273 

06/24/99 Not applicable to the SJV/SC 

area/Obsolete 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 

2261, 2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 

2266 etc... 

12/09/99 

2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 

(designation of alternative limits) 

not approved; otherwise 

superseded by 11/18/04 and 

6/14/07 rules 

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules 

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 

2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 

2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 

11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 

2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 

07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rules 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase 

Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 

2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 

12/12/02 

Superseded by 11/18/04 & 

6/14/07 rule. Approved 75 FR 

26653 (5/12/10) (except for 

section 2272 (CARFG3 

standards for small refineries) 

and 2273.5 (requirement to 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-3 

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

identify gasoline containing 

ethanol when delivered to retail 

station)) 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, 

CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 

2263, 2265 (and the incorporated “California 

Procedures”), and 2266.5 

11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 

(5/12/10) 

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only. Obsolete. 

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a 

Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emissions reductions 

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit 

Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

D. State On-Road Mobile Sources Measures 

Appendix Tables A-4 and A-5 list measures adopted by CARB since 1990 for on-road 

and off-road sources. 

Appendix Table A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 

27156 & 38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions 

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16, 1994 (59 

FR 48625 (9/22/94)) 

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 FR 

46979 (9/13/94)) 

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 

2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 

09/28/90 

Waivers granted January 7, 1993 & April 

6, 1998 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 63 FR 

18403 (4/15/98)) 

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90 

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and Light 

& Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977, 

1968.1 

09/12/91 

Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 

53371 (10/11/96)) Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 

1977 11/12/91 

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising 

reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and 

adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission 

vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 

11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 18, 1993 

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel 

Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 

1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 

3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994 

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel 

Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions 

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994 

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test 

Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994 

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty 

Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 

2180-2187, 1956.8(b) 

12/10/92 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Certification Requirements for Low Emission 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty 

Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 

01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 21, 1994 

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 

53371 (10/11/96)) 

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope September 28, 

2004 (69 FR 59920 (October 6, 2004)) 

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures. 

T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 

42689 (8/5/99)) 

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 

1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995 

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 

1956.8(b) 

11/09/94 

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & 

Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96)) 

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 

2190 12/08/94 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 

13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04)) 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02)) 

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 

2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision 

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and 

incorporate test procedures 

09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested October 8, 1996. 

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18, 2001 

(66 FR 7751 (1/25/01)) 

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997 

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 

13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 

2004) 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission 

Requirements for Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle 

Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test 

procedures 

05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 1999 (64 

FR 42689 (8/5/99)) 

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and 

incorporate test procedures 

07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 (69 

FR 60996 (10/14/04)) 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2188 and 2190-2194 

12/11/97 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 

13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test 

procedures 

04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested December 26, 2001 

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and 

Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, 

CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 

1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 

2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137-2140, 

2143-2148 

11/05/98 

Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 FR 

19811 (4/22/03))/found within the scope 

(1999 ZEV amendments) December 21, 

2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06)) 

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, 

CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06)) 

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98 

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program. Revised 

2/21/06 and 12/7/06 

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 

Removal of obsolete provisions, 

streamlining and other minor changes to 

9/1990 rule. 

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 

Combination of fleet requirements, 

emission standards, and zero-emission 

bus standards. Fleet requirements 

achieve approximately 2 tpd NOx 

reductions statewide, so minimal effect in 

SJV. Federal & state emission standards 

are the same for 2010 MY buses. 

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission 

Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8 &1961 

12/07/00 

Waiver granted for LDV & HDV April 

11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03)) 

Initial notice on within-the-scope finding 

request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (May 

14, 2007). 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" 

Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001. 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated 

Test Procedure 

01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21, 

2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06)) 

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and 

Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging 

Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 Found within the scope December 21, 

2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06)) 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and 

Later. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test 

procedures 

10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 

50322 (8/26/05)) 

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 

1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test 

procedures and guidelines 

11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21, 2005 

(70 FR 22034 (4/28/05)) 

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision. Very similar to 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01 

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & 

appendices C & D, and 2607-2610 

02/21/02 

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program. Revised 

12/7/06. 

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (2/5/04) 

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and 

In-Use Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2700­

2710 

05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology. 

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. T 

13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & 

documents incorporated by reference 

10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements over 

2000 rule. 

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas 

Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor 

administrative changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 

1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents 

incorporated by reference 

12/12/02 

Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 

50322 (8/26/05)) for all but HDGE. 

HDGE standards adopted to harmonize 

with EPA’s. Initial notice on within-thescope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 

27114 (5/14/07). 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emissions reductions claimed. 

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and 

documents incorporated by reference 

03/25/03 Found within the scope December 21, 

2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06)) 

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 

2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 

and 2477 

12/11/03 Waiver granted (non-road) January 9, 

2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009)) 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and 

In-Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 

13, CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology. 

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 1969 01/22/04 Compliance provision. Very similar to 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 

2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 Compliance provision. 

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System 

Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy 

Duty Engines. T 13, CCR, 1971 

05/20/04 Waiver granted December 22, 2005 (71 

FR 335 (1/4/06)) 

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 Various modifications to urban/transit 

bus standards. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, 

CCR, 2485 

07/22/04 

Greenhouse Gas Standards. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 

1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted June 30, 2009 (74 FR 

32744 (July 8, 2009) 

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 

2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4 

02/24/05 

On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 

and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines 

(HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1 

07/21/05 Waiver granted August 13, 2008 (73 FR 

52042 (9/8/08)) 

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus 

Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 

13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 

09/15/05 & 

10/20/05 

Aligns State emission standards with 

federal emission standards. 

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New 

and In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR 

section 1956.8 and the incorporated document 

10/20/05 

Confirm not pre-empted or within the 

scope finding requested. Initial notice 75 

FR 43975 (7/27/2010) 

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or 

Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 

12/08/05 

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 

2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 

01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission control 

labels. 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. T 

13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 

Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology, supporting rule for in-use 

control measures. 

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 

1961,1976 and 1978. 

05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 2010 

(75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010)). 

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 Compliance provision. Very similar to 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01 

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 

2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested. 

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by 

reference 

09/28/06 

Compliance provision. Compliance 

program "essentially identical to EPA's." 

See Updated Information Digest for the 

Rule. 

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 

Delays ZEB requirements due to high bus 

costs and unproven durability, reliability 

and ability to produce the number of 

buses required by the regulation. See 

Updated Information Digest. 

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D 12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program. 

Appendix Table A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and 

Garden Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 

Waiver granted July 5, 1995 (60 

1-year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards FR 37440 (7/20/95)) 

for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403-2407 04/08/93 

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. 

T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 

69763 (11/20/00)) 

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. 

CO Standards 1/25/96 

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 

69763 (11/20/00)) 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400, 2410-2414 03/26/98 

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 

69767 (11/20/00)), waiver 

granted (durability 

requirements), November 10, 

2003 (65 FR 65702 (11/21/03)). 

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400-2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 

2754.1, 2754.2, 2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and 

the documents incorporated by reference 

09/25/03 

Waiver granted, December 11, 

2006 (71 FR 75536 

(12/15/2006)) 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

2410-2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 

Waiver granted December 23, 

1996 (61 FR 69093 

(12/31/1996)) 

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & 

Off-Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 

69763 (11/20/00)) 

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 

2415 

12/10/98 Within the scope finding request 

March 4, 2000 

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 

2415 07/24/03 

Addition to March 4, 2000 

request November 19, 2004. 

Made changes to riding season 

restrictions. 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 

13, CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents 

incorporated by reference 

07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission 

standards identical to EPA's. 

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420-2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 

(60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995)) 

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 

Within the scope finding 

November 9, 2000 (65 FR 

69763 (11/20/00)) 

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 

2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & 

appendix A to article 2.1. 

01/27/00 Waiver granted, February 5, 

2010 (75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010) 

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010)) 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

2449 07/26/07 

Notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment (on 

waiver), 73 FR 58585 

(10/7/2008). 

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. 

T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 2006 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006)) 

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large 

Off-Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, 

CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 

2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 

2788, and 2789. 

05/26/06 

Adopts EPA's Standards for 

2007; adopts more stringent 

standards for 2010. 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 

Marine Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 

12/10/98 Waiver granted March 22, 2007 

(59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007)) 

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 

2139, 2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 

2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of 

documents by reference 

07/26/01 

Waiver granted in part March 

22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 

28, 2007)) 2007 standards not 

waived. 

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 

2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 

2447, and incorporated document 

11/17/05 

Revision to year 2007 standards 

in 7/26/2001 marine inboard 

engine standards. Waiver 

requested February 7, 2008. 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450-2465 03/27/97 

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, 

CCR Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 

2466 

02/26/04 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 

93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 

02/26/04 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested March 28, 2005. 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 

2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 

and 2465 

06/22/06 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008. 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment 

Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control 

Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 

CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 

12/06/06 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008. 

Portable Equipment Registration Program and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 

2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 

93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3 , 93116.3.1 

03/22/07 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008. 

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure 

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 

CFR part 59, subpart F. 

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F. 

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 

2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 

2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 

CFR part 59, subpart F. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 & 2477 

12/11/03 

Waiver granted (non-road) 

January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 

(1/16/2009)) 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Within-the-scope finding and waiver request January 29, 2007 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 

No emissions reductions. No 

cruise ships subject to rule call 

at SJV ports. See Initial 

Statement of Reasons for Rule, 

p. II-1. 

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric 

Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, 

CCR, 93118 

12/08/05 No emissions reductions 

claimed for SJV. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

and Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration 

(amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119 

11/16/06 No emissions reductions 

claimed for SJV. 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-5 

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power). T 

13, CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and 

documents incorporated by reference 

12/06/07 No emissions reductions 

claimed 

Commercial Harbor Craft. T 13, CCR, 2222 and 

incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for 

New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters" 

11/15/07 No emissions reductions 

claimed 

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean-Going Vessel Main Engines 

and Auxiliary Boiler. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, 

CCR, section 93118.2 

07/24/08 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

E. State Consumer Product Measures 

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for 20 years and 

continues to tighten standards and regulate more products. Appendix Table A-6 is a list of 

CARB’s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990. 

Appendix Table A-6 

Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the 

California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500­

94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379) 

Consumer Products BAAQMD. T 17, CCR, 94520­

94526 06/14/90 Not applicable to the SJV area 

Phase I - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507­

94517 10/11/90 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379) 

Phase II - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 

94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507 ­

94513, 94515 

01/09/92 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379) 

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer 

Products. T 17, CCR, 94507 - 94517 11/30/92 Not a control measure 

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 

17, CCR, 94540-94555 09/22/94 Voluntary compliance option. No action. 

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control 

Plan. T 17, CCR, 94520-94528, 94540-94543, 

94547. 

03/23/95 Superseded by 6/22/00 rule. 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer 

Products, and Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, 

CCR, 94500-94506, 94508, 94521 

09/28/95 

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants; 

superseded by 11/17/06 rule for 

consumer products; superseded by 

11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating 

products. 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer 

Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test 

Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 

94526 

11/21/96 

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants; 

superseded by 11/17/16 rule for 

consumer products; superseded by 

11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating 

products. 

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517, 

94321 

11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 

17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action. 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-6 

Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the 

California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 

17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action. 

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 

94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 

11/19/98 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Consumer Products - LVP-VOC Definitions And 

Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 

94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the 

amendment of CARB Method 310 

11/19/98 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for test 

method 310 and 11/17/06 rule for rest. 

California Consumer Products Regulation MidTerm Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 

94513 

10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control 

Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 

94700, 94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule 

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for 

Para-Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 

94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 

94515, and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which 

is incorporated by reference 

06/24/04 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 

57074) (EO order date of 5/6/05) 

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 

94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date 9/16/07) 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

F. State Vapor Recovery Measures 

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB is required 

to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes 

CARB, in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective 

equipment, and develop test methods. The installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor 

recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622. Appendix 

Table A-7 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by CARB since 1990 that address vapor recovery 

equipment certification, defects, and/or test methods. 

Appendix Table A-7 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94010-94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95 

CARB sets requirements for and 

certifies vapor recovery equipment. 

District rules establish requirements 

for the installation of CARB-certified 

equipment. See SJVAPCD Rules 

4621 & 4622 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94010-94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 

94159, 94160, 94162 

08/27/98 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test 

procedures, CP-201, TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6 

06/24/99 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In 

Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011 

03/23/00 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

(Emergency Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, 

CCR, 94011 

03/23/00 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods 

and Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 

94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & 

incorporated procedures 

10/25/01 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects. T 17, 

CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures. 

T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 

94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, 

and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 

12/12/02 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-7 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, 

CCR, 94011 07/22/04 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated 

document 

08/24/04 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification 

procedure 

11/18/04 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 

94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks 

(AST). T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94016 and 

94168 and incorporated documents 

06/21/07 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

G. Other State Measures 

A number of CARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in 

Appendix Tables A-2 through A-7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A-8. 

Appendix Table A-8 

Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide 

from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 

Covered by District Rule 7021. 

Emissions in category are less 

than 0.01 tpd VOC 

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Small source category in SJV < 0.1 tpd PM2.5 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of 

Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 

17 & 26, CCR, 93107 

12/10/92 Adopted as District Rule 7060. 

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic 

Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance 

and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 

04/27/00 Mainly addresses non-VOC 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface 

Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 

07/26/01 

Controls equivalent to 

SJVAPCD Regulation VIII, 

approved 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) 

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile 

Equipment Refinishing Coatings Containing 

Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. 

T 17, CCR, 93112 

09/20/01 

Air toxic control measures 

prohibits additives with 

hexavalent chromium. Total 

emissions CA are less than 300 

lb per year. ISOR, p. V-2. 

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 

Minimal impact, few units 

certified. See ISOR for 9/28/06 

rule amendment 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 

Regulated by Rules 4103 & 

4106. Rule 4103 revised 

5/17/07, approved 75 FR 74 FR 

57907 (11/10/09). Rule 4106 

(revised 6/21/01), approved 67 

FR 8894 (2/27/02); additional 

revision in 2010. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 

& documents incorporate by reference 

2/26/04 

PM control measure. NOx 

regulated by Rule 4702. 

(approved 73 FR 1819 

(1/10/08)). PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved 

primarily by replacement of 

existing engines as a result of 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix Table A-8 

Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

1990 to 2006 

Measure Hearing Date Comments 

District rule. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 

17, CCR, 93102.5 

12/09/04 

Air toxic control measures. 

Total emissions (chromium & 

nickel in CA are less than 200 lb 

per year. ISOR, p. IV-6 to 8. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115 

05/26/053/17/05 

Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM 

control measure. NOx regulated 

by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 

1819 (1/10/08)). PM reductions 

are expected to be achieved 

primarily by replacement of 

existing engines as a result of 

District rule. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In-Use 

Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR, 

93115.1-93115.15.t. 

11/16/06 

PM control measure. NOx 

regulated by Rule 4702. 

(approved 73 FR 1819 

(1/10/08)) PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved 

primarily by replacement of 

existing engines as a result of 

District rule. 

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 

94207-942142 

10/19/06 

Addition of 2013 standards NOx 

and VOC standards for DG units 

which burn waste gas. 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome 

Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 

17, CCR, 93102.1-93102.16 

12/07/06 

Air toxic control measures. 

Total emissions in CA are 14.4 

lb per year. ISOR, p. 49. 

EPA- Region 9 Page A-43 
 

 

 

Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan November 8, 2010 

Appendix B – SJVAPCD Rules
 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4101 Visible Emissions 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 70 FR 46770 (8/11/05) Baseline meas

4103 Open Burning 4/15/2010 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) Control strateg

revisions expe

4104 Reduction of Animal Matter 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) Baseline meas

4105 

Commercial Offsite Multi-User Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities 

12/17/1992 N/A N/A N/A Odor rule only 

4106 Prescribed Burning 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02) Feasibility stu

additional rule

4201 Particulate matter concentrations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 67 FR 16026 (4/4/02) Baseline meas

4202 Particulate matter emission rates 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 65 FR 21347 (4/21/00) Baseline meas

4203 

Particulate Matter Emissions from Incineration of Combustible Refuse 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A no action Baseline meas

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4204 Cotton Gin 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 71 FR 65740 (11/08/06) Baseline meas

Feasibility stu

4301 Fuel Burning Equipment 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 26876 (5/18/1999) Baseline meas4302 Incinerator Burning 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) Baseline meas4303 Orchard Heaters 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) Baseline meas4304 

Equipment Turning Procedures for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 66 FR 5766 (11/16/01) Baseline meas

4305 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 2 

8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Baseline meas

4306 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 3 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strateg

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4307 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 2.0 MM BTU/hr to 5.0 MMBTU/hr 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strateg

No emissions 

4308 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 0.75 MM BTU/hr to 2.0 MMBTU/hr 

12/17/2009 12/17/2009 10/20/2005 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) Control strateg

submitted Ma2010) 

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators and Ovens 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) Baseline meas

Feasibility stu

(2011) 

4311 Flares 6/18/2009 6/18/2009 6/20/2002 6/15/2006 

68 FR 8835 

(2/26/03) 

NPR - 72 FR 

65283 (11/20/07) 

Control strategsubmitted JanFebruary 4, 20No emissions 

4313 Lime Kilns 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 68 FR 52510 (9/4/2003) Baseline meas

Feasibility stu

(2011) 

4320 

Advanced Emission Reduction Option for Boilers 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 N/A N/A Control strateg

March 17, 200

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4351 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - RACT 

8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Baseline meas

4352 

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 75 FR 60623 (10/1/10) Limited appro

S-COM-4 - Fe& PM2.5 (2009

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 9/16/2010 8/17/2006 8/17/2006 72 FR 41894 (8/01/07) Control strateg

revisions expe

4401 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 75 FR 3996 (1/26/10) VOC measure Limited appro

Revisions sch

4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) withdrawn VOC measure 

4403 

Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) VOC measure 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4404 Heavy Oil Test Station ­ - Kern 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) VOC measure 

4405 

Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Existing Steam Generators (Central and Western Kern County) 

12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A 

4406 

Sulfur Compounds from Oilfield Steam Generators - Kern 

12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A 

4407 In-situ Combustion Well Vents 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 60 FR 12121 (3/6/95) VOC controls 4408 Glycol Dehydration Systems 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 68 FR 51187 (8/26/03) 

4409 

Components at Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) VOC control 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4451 

Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges, Threaded Connections and Process Drains at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) VOC measure Rule incorpor

4452 

Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum Refiners 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) VOC measure Rule incorpor

4453 

Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems 

12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 

73 FR 48 (1/02/08) 

withdrawn 

VOC measure 

4454 Refinery Process Turnaround 12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) withdrawn VOC measure 

4455 Components at Refineries 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) VOC measure 4501 Alternate Compliance for BARCT 6/17/1999 6/17/1999 N/A no action 

4550 Conservation Management Practices 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 7683 (2/14/06) Baseline meas

Feasibility stu

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4565 

Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 

3/15/2007 3/15/2007 N/A no action VOC measure 

4566 Organic Waste N/A N/A N/A N/A New rule for g

adoption in D

4570 Confined Animal Facilities 10/21/20101 6/18/5/2009 6/18/2009 75 FR 2079 (1/14/10) 

VOC measure Limited appro2010 revision

4601 Architectural Coatings 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 10/31/2001 69 FR 34 (1/02/04) VOC measure Limited appro

clock (disappr

4602 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations 

9/17/2009 9/17/2009 12/20/2001 67 FR 42999 (6/26/02) VOC measure 

4603 

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 

9/17/2009 9/17/2009 10/16/2008 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) VOC measure 

4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) VOC measure 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 3996 (1/26/10) VOC measure Limited appro

Revisions sch

4606 Wood Products Coating Operations 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 52849 (10/15/09) VOC measure 

4607 Graphic Arts 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 74 FR 52849 (10/15/09) VOC measure 

4610 Glass Coating Operations 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 69 FR 60962 (10/14/04) VOC measure 4612 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations -­Phase 2 

10/21/2010 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10) VOC measure

expected soon 

4621 

Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers 

12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 33397 (7/13/09) VOC measure 

4622 Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicles 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 33397 (7/13/09) VOC measure 

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4623 Storage of Organic Liquids 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 70 FR 53937 (9/13/05) VOC measure 4624 Transfer of Organic Liquids 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) VOC measure 

4625 Wastewater Separators 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A 

73 FR 48 (1/02/08) 

withdrawn 

VOC measure 

4641 

Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt Paving and Maintenance Operations 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) VOC measure 

4642 Solid Waste Disposal Site 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 66 FR 38939 (7/26/01) VOC measure 4651 Soil Decontamination Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) VOC measure 4652 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A No sources 

4653 Adhesives 9/16/2010 9/17/2009 9/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) VOC measure

expected soon

EPA- Region 9 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4661 Organic Solvents 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 24406 (5/5/2010) VOC measure 4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) VOC measure 4663 

Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) VOC measure 

4672 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10) VOC measure 

4681 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 63 FR 43881 (8/17/98) VOC measure 

4682 

Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 1994 60 FR 31086 (6/13/95) VOC measure 

4684 Polyester Resin Operations 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/20/2007 75 FR 3996 (1/26/10) VOC measure Limited appro

Revisions sch

4691 

(461.02) 

Vegetable Oil Processing Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 59 FR 2535 (1/18/94) VOC measur

EPA- Region 9 10 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4692 Commercial Charbroiling 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 3/21/2002 68 FR 33005 (6/03/03) Control strateg

2010 (comple

4693 Bakery Ovens 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 69 FR 22441 (4/26/04) VOC measure 4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 N/A no action VOC measure 

4695 Brandy and Wine Aging 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 N/A no action VOC measure 4701 I/C Engines - Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Baseline meas4702 I/C Engines - Phase 2 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08) Control strateg

Currently in wDecember, 20

4703 Stationary Gas Turbines 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 53888 (10/21/09) Control strateg4801 Sulfur Compounds 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 no action 

4802 Sulfuric Acid Mist 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 30396 (6/08/99) Baseline meas

Limited approNo sanction cl

EPA- Region 9 11 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

4901 

Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) Control strateg

4902 Residential Water Heaters 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 75 FR 24408 (5/5/10) Control strateg4905 

Natural Gas-fired, fantype, residential central furnaces 

10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) Additional rev

PM2.5 plan com

8011 Fugitive Dust General Requirements 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas

8021 

Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earthmoving Activities 

8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas

8031 Bulk Materials 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas8041 Carryout and Trackout 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas8051 Open Areas 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas8061 Paved and Unpaved Roads 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas

EPA- Region 9 12 
Draft TSD for the Proposed Action 

on the SJV 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

Appendix Table B -1 

Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 

November 5, 2010 

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

8071 

Unpaved Vehicle/ Equipment Traffic Areas 

9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas

8081 Agricultural Sources 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06) Baseline meas

9310 School Bus 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 75 FR 10420 (3/8/2010) Baseline meas9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 N/A no action Control strateg

2010 (comple

9510 Indirect Source Review 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 (proposal) NPR: 75 FR 28509 (5/21/10) Proposed appr

EPA- Region 9 13