1

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0589; FRL-]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plan 

(SIP) revisions submitted by California to provide for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). These SIP revisions 

are the 2007 Ozone Plan (revised 2008 and 2011) and SJV-related 

portions of the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). EPA 

is proposing to approve the emissions inventories, reasonably 

available control measures demonstration, provisions for 

transportation control strategies and measures, provisions for 

advanced technology/clean fuels for boilers, reasonable further 

progress (RFP) and attainment demonstrations, transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets for all RFP milestone 

years and the attainment year, contingency measures for failure 

to make RFP or attain, and Clean Air Act section 182(e)(5) new 

technologies provisions and associated commitment to adopt 

contingency measures. EPA is also proposing to approve 

commitments to measures and reductions by the SJV Air Pollution 

Control District and the California Air Resources Board. In the 
2

alternative, EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP with respect 

to certain provisions for transportation control strategies and 

measures sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from 

growth in vehicle miles traveled or the number of vehicle trips.

DATE: Written comments must be received on or before [Insert 

date 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal 

Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2011-0622, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions.

E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.

Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

The www.regulations.gov website is an ―anonymous access‖ system, 
3

and EPA will not know your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send 

e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 

electronically on the www.regulations.gov website and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed 

in the index, some documents may be publicly available only at 

the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment 

during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR 

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

Copies of the SIP materials are also available for 

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, Sacramento, 

California 95812, and

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 

Gettysburg, Fresno, California 93726.

The SIP materials are also electronically available at: 
4

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozon

e2007.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning 

Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

(415) 972-3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Nonattainment Area

A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment SIPs 

III. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to 

Address Ozone Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 

Submissions

IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and SJV Portion of the 

2007 State Strategy

A. Emissions Inventories

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and 

Control Strategy

C. Attainment Demonstration 
5

D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration 

E. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 

Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT Increases, To 

Provide for RFP and Attainment

F. Contingency Measures

G. Advanced Control Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation 

Conformity

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Throughout this document, ―we,‖ ―us‖ and ―our‖ refer to 

EPA.

I. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard and the San Joaquin Valley 

Ozone Nonattainment Area 

A. Background on the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

Ground-level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC)1 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in 

the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many 

types of pollution sources including on- and off-road motor 

 

1 California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic Gases 

(ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially synonymous. For 

simplicity, we use the term VOC to mean either VOC or ROG. 
6

vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, 

and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and 

paints.

Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health 

effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in 

children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can 

increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung 

diseases. Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased 

susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor 

visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions 

for individuals with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases 

the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease. Children 

are at increased risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs 

are still developing and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their exposure. See ―Fact Sheet, 

Proposal to Revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

for Ozone,‖ January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) for 

ozone to replace the existing 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) with an 8-hour standard set at 0.08 ppm. 
7

62 FR 33856.2 EPA revised the ozone standard after considering 

substantial evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating 

that serious health effects are associated with exposures to 

ozone concentrations above the levels of these revised 

standards.

B. The SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is 

required by Clean Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) to designate 

areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the SJV as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and classified 

the area as ―serious‖ under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 (April 30, 2004) 

and 40 CFR 81.305. The designation and classification became 

effective on June 15, 2004. In 2007, California requested that 

EPA reclassify the SJV from ―serious‖ to ―extreme‖ nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(3).3

We granted California’s request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified 

 

2 In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary and 

secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering 

the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 

3 See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-04-11a (April 

30, 2007), p. 4; CARB Resolution No. 07-20 (June 14, 2007), p. 

6; and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 17, 2007.
8

the SJV to extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409. 

The SJV 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 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. It 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. For a precise description of the 

geographic boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley 8-hour ozone

nonattainment area, see 40 CFR 81.305. The local air district 

which has primary responsibility for developing a plan to attain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in this area, is the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or 

District).

Ambient 8-hour ozone values in the SJV vary depending on 

the location with the highest values being recorded on its 

eastern edge from Fresno to south of Bakersfield. For the 2008-

2010 period, the 8-hour ozone design value for the area is 0.104 

ppm, recorded at the Arvin-Bear Mountain Boulevard monitoring 
9

site southeast of Bakersfield.4

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 1997 8-Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area SIPs

States must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under 

Title 1, Part D of the CAA, which includes section 172, 

―Nonattainment plan provisions,‖ and subpart 2, ―Additional 

Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas‖ (sections 181-185). 

In order to assist states in developing effective plans to 

address their ozone nonattainment problem, EPA issued the 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule. This rule was finalized in two 

phases. The first phase of the rule addresses classifications 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, applicable attainment dates

for the various classifications, and the timing of emissions 

reductions needed for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 

2004). The second phase addresses SIP submittal dates and the 

requirements for reasonably available control technology and 

measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP)

demonstration, modeling and attainment demonstrations, 

contingency measures, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 

(November 29, 2005). The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

 

4 See EPA, Air Quality System Preliminary Design Report dated 

September 18, 2011 in the docket for today’s proposal. A design 

value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific 

methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data and is used 

to determine whether an area’s air quality meets a NAAQS. The

methodology for calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
10

subpart X.5 We discuss each of these CAA and regulatory 

requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment plans in more detail 

below.

III. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to 

Address Ozone Attainment in the San Joaquin Valley 

A. California’s SIP Submittals

Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process 

for a state to develop and submit to EPA a SIP providing for 

attainment of the NAAQS under title 1, part D of the CAA. For 8-

hour ozone areas designated as nonattainment effective June 15, 

2004, this SIP was due by June 15, 2007. See CAA 172(b) and 40 

CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910. 

California has made five SIP submittals to address the 

CAA’s planning requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the San Joaquin Valley. We refer to these submittals 

collectively as the ―[SJV] 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.‖ The two 

principal ones are the SJVUAPCD’s 2007 Ozone Plan (also Plan) 

and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) State Strategy 

for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (2007 State 

Strategy).

 

5 EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements of the 

8-hour ozone implementation rule since its initial promulgation 

in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 

(August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010). None of 

these revisions affect any provision of the rule that is 

applicable to EPA’s proposed actions on the SJV 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP.
11

1. SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

The 2007 Ozone Plan was adopted by the District's Governing 

Board on April 30, 2007 and by CARB on June 14, 2007 and 

submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007.

6 It includes an attainment 

demonstration, commitments by the SJVUAPCD to adopt control 

measures to achieve emissions reductions from sources under its 

jurisdiction (primarily stationary sources), and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) used for transportation conformity 

purposes. The attainment demonstration includes air quality 

modeling, an analysis of CAA section 172 reasonably available 

control measures (RACM)), base year and projected year emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. On April 24, 2009, CARB 

submitted a minor amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan’s strategy to 

extend the adoption date for Control Measure S-Gov-5 ―Composting 

Green Waste.‖7

2. CARB 2007 State Strategy

 

6 See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a: In the Matter 

of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 2007 Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; CARB Resolution No. 

07-20, June 14, 2007; letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, James 

N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 1, 2008 with enclosures 

(revising the RFP demonstrations for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley air basins).

7 See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18, December 

18, 2008; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, April 24, 2009, with enclosures.
12

To demonstrate attainment, the 2007 Ozone Plan relies to a 

large extent on measures and commitments in CARB’s 2007 State 

Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy was adopted by CARB on 

September 27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007.8 It 

describes CARB’s overall approach to addressing, in conjunction 

with local plans, attainment of both the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in all nonattainment areas in the State, 

including the San Joaquin Valley. It also includes CARB’s 

commitments to propose 15 defined State measures9 and to obtain 

specific amounts of aggregate reductions of VOC and NOx emissions 

in the SJV from sources under the State’s jurisdiction, which 

are primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, 

consumer products, and fuels.

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the ―Status Report on 

the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy,‖ dated March 24, 2009 

 

8 See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 with 

attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 16, 2007 with enclosures.

9 The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures to be 

implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (Smog 

Check improvements) and the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (VOC reductions from pesticide use). See 2007 State 

Strategy, pp. 64-65 and CARB Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 

8.
13

and adopted April 24, 2009 (2009 State Strategy Status Report).

10

This submittal updated the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its 

implementation during 2007 and 2008.

In today's proposal, we are evaluating only those portions 

of the 2007 State Strategy and its revisions that are relevant 

for attainment of the 8-hour standard in the San Joaquin Valley.

3. CARB 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

On July 29, 2011, CARB submitted the ―8-Hour Ozone State 

Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets 

for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins,‖ dated 

June 20, 2011 and adopted July 21, 2011 (2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions).11 This submittal updates both the 2007 State Strategy 

and the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. Specifically, it amends CARB’s 

rulemaking schedule for the Agricultural Engines measure.12 It 

 

10 See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009, with 

attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. Only pages 11-27 of the 2009 

State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. 

The balance is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A 

to the CARB Resolution No. 09-34.

11 See CARB Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 and letter, James 

N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with 

enclosures.

12 In May 2011, CARB adopted other updates and revisions to its 

rulemaking schedule in the 2007 State Strategy. See CARB,

Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation 

Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, submitted on May 18, 2011 
14

also updates the emissions inventories, RFP demonstration, 

contingency measures, and transportation conformity MVEB for the 

SJV to reflect rule adoptions and improvements to emissions 

inventories. CARB provided supplemental documentation for the 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on August 10, 2011 (2011 Ozone SIP 

Revision Supplement).

13

Future references in this proposal to the 2007 State 

Strategy and to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan will be to the Strategy 

as revised in 2009 and 2011 and the Plan as revised in 2009 and 

2011, respectively, unless otherwise noted.

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP 

Submittals

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state 

to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public 

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 an 

opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with 

EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

Both the District and CARB have satisfied applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public 

 

(2011 Progress Report). We proposed to approve those revisions 

on July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41338).

13 Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Office, CARB, to Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 10, 2011.
15

notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2007

Ozone 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, 2007. See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 

ES-1 and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution, p. 3. CARB 

provided the required public notice and opportunity for public 

comment prior to its June 14, 2007 public hearing on the Plan. 

See CARB Resolution No. 07-20. The District also provided the 

required public notice and hearing on the 2009 revision to the 

Plan. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 08-12-18, 

December 18, 2008, p. 2.

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment 

periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the 

2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB Resolution 

No. 07-28. CARB also provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a public hearing prior to 

its April 24, 2009 adoption of the 2009 State Strategy Status 

Report and its July 21, 2011 adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. See CARB Resolution No. 09-34 and CARB Resolution No. 

11-22.

The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices 

of District and CARB public hearings, as evidence that all 

hearings were properly noticed. We find, therefore, that each of 

the five submittals that comprise the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 
16

meets the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing 

in CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).

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 submittal that EPA has not 

affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will be

deemed complete by operation of law six months after the date of 

submittal. EPA’s SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix V.

The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

the April 24, 2009 submittal revising the Plan became complete 

by operation of law on May 15, 2008 and October 24, 2009, 

respectively. The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 2007 State 

Strategy and the August 12, 2009 submittal of the 2009 revisions 

to the Strategy became complete by operation of law on May 16, 

2008 and February 12, 2010, respectively. We found the submittal 

of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete on August 23, 2011.

14

IV. Review of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the SJV Portion of 

the 2007 State Strategy

We summarize our evaluation of the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone

SIP’s compliance with applicable CAA and EPA regulatory 

requirements below. Our detailed evaluation can be found in the 

 

14 Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, 

CARB, August 23, 2011.
17

TSD for this proposal which is available online at 

www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0589 or 

from the EPA contact listed at the beginning of this notice.

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each state with an ozone 

nonattainment area classified under subpart 2 to submit, within 

two years of the area’s designation as nonattainment, a 

―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources‖ of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in 

accordance with guidance provided by EPA. CAA 182(a)(1), 40 CFR 

51.915. 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 (―EI Guidance‖) which provides

guidance on how to develop base year and future year baseline

emissions inventories for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze 

SIPs. For areas that were initially designated nonattainment for 

the 8-hour ozone standard in 2004, EPA recommends using calendar 

year 2002 as the base year for the inventory required by CAA 

section 182(a)(1). EI Guidance, p. 8.

Emissions inventories for ozone should include emissions of 

VOC, NOx, and carbon monoxide (CO) and represent an average 

summer week day during the ozone season. EI Guidance, pp. 14 and 
18

17. States should include documentation in their submittals 

explaining how the emissions data were calculated. 70 FR at 

71664 and EI Guidance, p. 40. In estimating mobile source 

emissions, states should use the latest emissions models and 

planning assumptions available at the time the SIP is developed. 

68 FR at 32854 and 70 FR 71666. 

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The base year and future year baseline inventories for NOx

and VOC for the SJV ozone nonattainment area together with 

additional documentation for the inventories are found in 

Appendix B of the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendices A and F of the 

2007 State Strategy.

15,16 These inventories represent average 

summer day (ozone season) emissions. An inventory is provided 

for the base year of 2002 and projected baseline inventories are 

provided for the RFP milestone years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 

and 2020; and the attainment year of 2023. The baseline 

inventories include reductions from federal, State, and District 

measures adopted prior to 2007. See 2007 State Strategy, 

Appendix A, p. 1. All inventories include emissions from point, 

 

15 By ―future year baseline inventories‖ or ―projected baseline 

inventories, we mean projected emissions inventories for future 

years that account for, among other things, the ongoing effects 

of economic growth and adopted emissions control requirements. 

16 Inventories for CO and non-anthropogenic sources (that is, 

biogenic or natural sources) were developed for the air quality 

modeling and can be found at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/.
19

area, on-road, and non-road sources. The 2002 inventory was 

projected to 2005 and future years using CARB’s California 

Emissions Forecasting System (CEFSv 1.06). Both base year and 

projected baseline inventories use the most current version of 

California’s mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007, for 

estimating on-road motor vehicle emissions. EPA has approved 

this model for use in SIPs and transportation conformity 

analyses. 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 

B-1.

As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB submitted 

revised base year and future year baseline inventories for the 

SJV. See Table 1 below. These revised inventories incorporate 

improved activity data and/or emissions factors for diesel 

trucks and buses and off-road equipment that were developed as 

part of CARB’s December 2010 rulemakings amending its In-Use OnRoad Truck and Bus Rule and In-Use Off-Road Equipment Rule. They 

also reflect revisions to the methodology for estimating NOx

emissions from natural-gas fueled industrial equipment as well 

as other improvements to the stationary source inventories made 

by the District in the period between adoption of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan and the initial draft of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 

PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, December 2007. Collectively, these 

revisions reduce the total estimated 2002 base year NOx and VOC 

inventories by approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, 
20

respectively. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-9. For a more 

detailed discussion of these inventory changes, see TSD, section 

II.A. 

The future year baseline inventories were also revised to 

reflect the effects of the 2007-2009 economic recession, which 

has significantly reduced activity levels in and associated 

emissions from the State’s construction and goods movement 

sectors. CARB estimates economic growth rates will return to 

normal levels by the 2017-2018 time period. 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, Appendix B. As a result, projected emission levels 

from these categories in the years up to 2017-2018 are now lower 

than were originally projected in the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 

State Strategy as submitted in November 2007. These recessionrelated decreases in emissions do not in themselves affect the 

Plan’s emissions inventories for the modeling validation years

(1999/2000), the base year (2002), or future years (2020 and 

2023) and thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates in 

the Plan (i.e., they do not in themselves affect the target 

level of overall emissions reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment), nor do they alter the 2002 base year inventory

which provides the starting point for the RFP demonstration. The 

principal effect of the recession-related decreases in projected 

emissions estimates is to reduce the amount of reductions needed 
21

from the SIP’s control strategy to demonstrate RFP in the years 

prior to 2018.

Table 1

San Joaquin Valley Revised Base Year and Attainment Year 

Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary

(tons per summer day)

Emissions Inventory 

category NOx VOC

2002 2023 2002 2023

Stationary and Area 

Sources

101 53 276 244

On-road Mobile 

Sources

312 69 110 37

Off-road Mobile 

Sources

152 73 71 57

TOTAL 565 195 457 339

Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, p. B-3.

Note: 2023 emissions levels reflect control adopted through 

2011.

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories

We have reviewed the 2002 base year emissions inventory in 

the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP and the inventory methodologies 

used by the District and CARB and have determined that the 

inventory was developed consistent with CAA requirements as 

reflected in the 8-hour ozone implementation rule and EPA’s 

guidance. The revised 2002 base year inventory is comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions of 8-hour 

ozone precursors in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area.

We therefore propose to approve the base year inventory as 

meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and EPA’s 8-
22

hour ozone implementation rule. We provide more detail on our 

review of the inventories in section II.A. of the TSD for this 

proposal.

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures Demonstration and 

Control Strategy

1. Requirements for RACM and Control Strategies

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), and shall provide for attainment 

of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ The 8-

hour ozone implementation rule requires that for each 

nonattainment area that is required to submit an attainment 

demonstration, the state must also submit concurrently a SIP 

revision demonstrating that it has adopted all RACM necessary to 

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to 

meet any RFP requirements. 40 CFR 51.912(d).

EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM 

requirement in the General Preamble at 1356017 and in a 

 

17 The ―General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ published at 57 FR 13498 

on April 16, 1992, describes EPA’s preliminary view on how we 

would interpret various SIP planning provisions in title I of 
23

memorandum entitled ―Guidance on the Reasonably Available 

Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration 

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,‖ John Seitz, 

Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999 

(Seitz memo). In summary, EPA guidance provides that, to address

the requirement to adopt all RACM, states should consider all 

potentially reasonable control measures for source categories in 

the nonattainment area to determine whether they are reasonably 

available for implementation in that area and whether they 

would, if implemented individually or collectively, advance the 

area’s attainment date by one year or more. See Seitz memo and

General Preamble at 13560.

18 Any measures that are necessary to 

meet these requirements that 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.19

 

the CAA as amended in 1990, including those planning provisions 

applicable to the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA continues to rely 

on certain guidance in the General Preamble to implement the 8-

hour ozone standard under title I.

18 See also “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for 

Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas,‖ 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) and Memorandum

dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, ―Additional Submission on 

RACM from States with Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

SIPs.‖

19 For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or 

above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires implementation of 

RACT for all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source 
24

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....‖ See also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). The ozone

implementation rule requires that all control measures needed 

for attainment be implemented no later than the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d). The attainment 

year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately

 

category for which EPA has issued a Control Techniques Guideline 

(CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 

182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources of NOx. In 

extreme areas, a major source is a stationary source that emits 

or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOx per 

year. CAA sections 182(e) and (f). Under the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule, states were required to submit SIP 

revisions meeting the RACT requirements of CAA sections

182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 27 months after designation 

for the 8-hour ozone standard (September 15, 2006 for areas 

designated in April 2004) and to implement the required RACT 

measures no later than 30 months after that submittal deadline. 

See 40 CFR 51.912(a). California submitted the CAA section 182 

RACT SIP for SJV in January 2007 and a revised RACT SIP in June 

2009. EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove 

that 2009 SJV RACT SIP on August 31, 2011. See Partial Approval 

and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for Ozone; Proposed rule, signed August 31, 2011.
25

preceding a nonattainment area’s attainment date. 40 CFR 

51.900(g).

2. RACM Demonstration and the Control Strategy in the SJV 2007 

8-Hour Ozone SIP

For the 2007 Ozone 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 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. We describe each 

agency’s efforts below. We also discuss CARB’s and the 

District’s adopted control strategies including the provisions 

for the development of new and improved technologies under CAA 

section 182(e)(5). 

a. SJVUAPCD’s RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy

The District’s RACM analysis, which focuses on stationary 

and area source controls, is described in Chapter 6 and Appendix 

I of the 2007 Ozone Plan. To identify potential RACM, the 

District reviewed measures from a number of sources including 

measures in other nonattainment areas’ plans and measures 

suggested by the public during development of the Plan. 2007 

Ozone Plan, pp. 6-2 to 6-3. The identified potential measures, 

as well as existing District measures, are described by 

emissions inventory category in Appendix I of the Plan. From the 
26

set of identified potential controls, the District selected 

measures for adoption and implementation based on the 

technological and economic feasibility of emissions controls, 

the potential magnitude and timing of emissions reductions, cost 

effectiveness, and other acceptable criteria for determining 

RACM. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6-3.

After completing its RACM analysis for stationary and area 

sources under its jurisdiction, the District developed its 

―Stationary Source Regulatory Implementation Schedule‖ (2007 

Ozone Plan, Table 6-1), which gives the schedule for regulatory 

adoption and implementation of the measures determined to be 

feasible. The District also identified a number of source 

categories for which feasibility studies would be undertaken to 

refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls. These 

categories and the schedule for studying them are listed in 

Table 6-2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan.

In the five years prior to the adoption of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan, the District developed and implemented comprehensive plans 

to address attainment of the PM10 standards (2003 PM10 Plan, 

approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)) and the 1-hour ozone 

standards (2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan, approved 75 FR 

10420 (March 8, 2010)). These plans have resulted in the 

adoption by the District of many new rules and revisions to 

existing rules for stationary and area sources. For the most 
27

part, the District’s current rules are equivalent to or more 

stringent than those developed by other air districts. In 

addition to these stationary and area source measures, the 

District has also adopted an indirect source review rule, Rule 

9510, to address increased indirect emissions from new 

industrial, commercial and residential developments. See 

SJVUAPCD Rule 9510 ―Indirect Source Review,‖ adopted December 

15, 2005, approved 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). The District also 

operates incentive grant programs to accelerate turnover of 

existing stationary and mobile engines to cleaner units. See 

2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8 and SJV Ozone Mid-Course 

Review, Section 5 and 6.

20

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and 

committed to adopt and implement 19 new control measures for NOx

and VOC and to achieve certain aggregate emissions reductions of 

NOx and VOC. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1 (revised December 18, 

2008). In Table 2 below, we list these measures, which mostly 

involve strengthening existing District rules, their adoption 

dates and current SIP approval status. As can be seen from Table 

2, the District has completed action on all of its rule adoption 

commitments. Table 6-1 in the Plan shows estimated emissions 

reductions from each rule for milestone years from 2008 to 2020, 

2012, and the attainment year of 2023. The District’s 

 

20 SJVAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, May 2011.
28

commitment, however, is only to the aggregate emissions 

reductions of NOx and VOC in each year. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6-5

and SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 07-04-11a, p. 6. We show 

these commitments in Table 3 below. Table 4 gives the total

estimate of SIP-creditable reductions achieved by the District 

to date. 

Table 2

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure 

Number & 

Description

District 

Rule 

Number

Adoption Date

Anticipat SIP Status

ed Actual 

S-GOV-1 

Composting 

Biosolids

4565 1

st Q –

2007

March 

2007

Proposed: 

August 31, 2011 

(signature date) 

S-AGR-1 Open 

Burning 

(Phase IV)

4103 2

nd Q –

2010

April 

2010

Proposed:76 FR 

40660 (July 11, 

2011)

S-SOL-11 Solvents

Organic 

Solvents 4661

3

rd Q –

2007

September 

2007

75 FR 24406 (May 

5, 2010)

Organic 

Solvent 

Degreasing

4662 September 

2007

74 FR 37948 

(July 30, 2009) 

Organic 

Solvent 

Cleaning

4663 September 

2007

74 FR 37948 

(July 30, 2009) 

S-COM-5 

Stationary 

Gas Turbines

4703 3

rd Q –

2007

September 

2007

74 FR 53888 

(October 21, 

2009)

S-IND-24 

Soil 

Decontaminat

ion

4651 3

rd Q –

2007

September 

2007

74 FR 52894 

(October 15, 

2009)

S-IND-6 

Polystyrene 

4682 3

rd Q –

2007

September 

2007

76 FR 41745 

(July 15, 2011)
29

Measure 

Number & 

Description

District 

Rule 

Number

Adoption Date

Anticipat SIP Status

ed Actual 

Foam

S-PET-1&2 

Gasoline 

Storage & 

Transfer

4623

4624

4

th Q –

2007

December 

2007

74 FR 56120

(October 30, 

2009)

S-PET-3 

Aviation 

Fuel Storage

—

3

rd Q –

2007

found not 

feasible Found infeasible

S-COM-1 

Large 

Boilers

4306

4320

3

rd Q –

2008

October 

2008

75 FR 1715 

(January 13, 

2010)

76 FR 16696 

(March 25, 2011)

S-COM-2 

Boilers, 

Steam 

Generators 

and Process 

Heaters (2 

to 5 

MMBtu/hr)

4307 3

rd Q –

2008

October 

2008

75 FR 1715 

(January 13, 

2010)

S-COM-7 

Glass 

Melting 

Furnaces1

4354 3

rd Q –

2008

October 

2008

76 FR 53640 

(August 29, 

2011)

S-SOL-20 

Graphic Arts 4607 4

th Q –

2008

December 

2008

74 FR 52894

(October 15, 

2009)

S-COM-9 

Residential 

Water 

Heaters

4902 1

st Q –

2009

March 

2009

75 FR 24408 (May 

5, 2010)

S-GOV-5 

Composting 

Green Waste

4566 4

th Q 0 

2010

August 

2011 Rule adopted 

S-IND-21 

Flares 4311 2

nd Q –

2009 June 2009

Proposed: 76 FR 

52623 (August 8, 

2011)
30

Measure 

Number & 

Description

District 

Rule 

Number

Adoption Date

Anticipat SIP Status

ed Actual 

S-IND-14 

Brandy and 

Wine Aging

4695 3

rd Q –

2009

September 

2009

76 FR 47076 

(August 4, 2011)

S-SOL-1 

Architectura

l Coatings

4601 4

th Q –

2009

December 

2009

Proposed: 76 FR 

35167 (June 16, 

2011)

S-AGR-2 

Confined 

Animal 

Facilities

4570 2

nd Q –

2010

October

2010

Proposed: 

August 31, 2011 

(signature date)

S-SOL-6 

Adhesives 4653 3

rd Q –

2010

September 

2010 Rule submitted

Source: List of measures and anticipated adoption dates: 2007

Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2009. 

Table 3

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2007 Ozone Plan Aggregate Emissions Reductions Commitments

(tons per summer day)

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023

NOx 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2

VOC 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008

Table 4

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

2007 Ozone Plan Aggregate Creditable Emissions Reductions from 

Adopted Rules

(tons per summer day)

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023

NOx 3.6 6.2 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6

VOC 34.3 37.7 39.8 41.3 43.1 44.5

Source: TSD, Table D-5.
31

The District also included in its Plan programs for

incentive grants and to develop innovative strategies such as 

green contracting and energy conservation. These are discussed 

below in section II.B.2.d.

b. The Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis

The local jurisdictions’ RACM analysis was conducted by the 

SJV’s eight MPOs.21 This analysis focused on potential NOx

emissions reductions from transportation control measures (TCM). 

TCMs are, in general, measures designed to reduce emissions from 

on-road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles 

traveled or traffic congestion. The analysis is summarized in 

Chapter 9 of the 2007 Ozone Plan and described in detail in 

Appendix C. 

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV MPOs evaluated RACM using 

a three-step process of developing a list of potential 

reasonably available local controls, estimating the maximum 

potential emissions reductions from the identified measures, and 

then comparing these reductions against the level of reductions 

needed to advance attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the 

 

21 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San 

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area: 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.
32

SJV. Through this process, the MPOs determined that there were 

no additional local RACM for NOx, beyond those measures already 

adopted, that could advance attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard in the SJV. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9-7.

c. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy

Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility 

for reducing emissions in California include most new and 

existing on- and off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products.

Given the need for significant emissions reductions from 

mobile and area sources to meet the NAAQS in California 

nonattainment areas, the State of California has been a leader 

in the development of stringent control measures for on-road and 

off-road mobile sources and the fuels that power them. 

California has unique authority under CAA section 209 (subject 

to a waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement new emission 

standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines 

and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.

According to the 2007 State Strategy, California’s new 

vehicle emissions standards have reduced new car emissions by 99 

percent and new truck emissions by 90 percent from uncontrolled 

levels, and new lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles 

and boats, and other off-road sources are 80-98 percent cleaner 

than their uncontrolled counterparts. 2007 State Strategy, p. 
33

37. In addition to its new vehicle and engine standards, the

State has adopted many measures that focus on achieving 

reductions from in-use mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance requirements in 

California’s Smog Check program, truck and bus idling 

restrictions, and various incentive programs. Appendix A of the 

TSD includes a list of all measures adopted by CARB between 1990 

and the beginning of 2007. These measures, reductions from which 

are reflected in the Plan’s baseline inventories, fall into two 

categories: measures that are subject to a waiver of Federal 

pre-emption under CAA section 209 (section 209 waiver measures 

or waiver measures) and those for which the State is not 

required to obtain a waiver (non-waiver measures). Emissions 

reductions from waiver measures are fully creditable in 

attainment and RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet other 

CAA requirements, such as contingency measures. See TSD, section 

II.D.3.a.i. and EPA’s proposed and final approval of the SJV 1-

Hour Ozone Plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 

10420 (March 8, 2010). Generally, the State’s baseline nonwaiver measures have been approved by EPA into the SIP and are 

fully creditable for meeting CAA requirements. See TSD, Appendix 

A.

CARB developed its proposed 2007 State Strategy after an 

extensive public consultation process to identify potential 
34

measures.22 Through this process, CARB identified and has 

committed to develop 15 new defined measures. These measures 

focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as increasing the 

stringency of emissions standards for a number of engine 

categories, fuels, and consumer products. They build on CARB’s 

already extensive existing program described above, which

addresses emissions from all types of mobile sources through 

both regulations and incentive programs. See TSD, Appendix A. 

Table 5 below lists the defined measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy that are applicable to the SJV and their current 

adoption and approval status. Table 6 provides the CARB’s 

current estimates of the emissions reductions in the SJV from 

these measures, which are part of the State’s commitment to 

achieve the tonnage of reductions needed for attainment. Table 7 

provides the estimates of the emissions reductions that are 

currently SIP creditable.

Table 5

2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Applicable to the SJV, 

Schedule for Consideration and Current Status

State Measures

Expected 

Action 

Year

Current Status

 

22 This process is described in the 2007 Ozone Plan at p. 9-10.

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.
35

State Measures

Expected 

Action 

Year

Current Status

Smog Check 

Improvements 2007-2009 Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010)23

Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement (AB 

118)

2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by 

BAR, September 2010.

Modification to 

Reformulated 

Gasoline Program

2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 

2010)

Cleaner In-Use 

Heavy Duty Trucks

2007, 

2008, 2010

Proposed for approval: 76 FR 

40652 (July 11, 2011)

Accelerated 

Introduction of 

Cleaner 

Locomotives

2008

Prop 1B bond funds awarded to 

upgrade line-haul locomotive 

engines not already accounted 

for by enforceable agreements 

with the railroads. Those 

cleaner line-hauls will begin 

operation by 2012.

Cleaner In-Use 

Off-Road Engines 2007, 2010 Waiver decision pending. 

Cleaner In-Use 

Agricultural 

Equipment

2013

Incentive program in progress. 

Additional action expected 

2013.

New Emissions 

Standards for 

Recreational Boats

2013 Action expected 2013.

Expanded Off-Road 

Recreational 

Vehicle Emissions 

Standards

2013 Action expected 2013

Enhanced Vapor 

Recovery for Above 

Ground Storage 

Tanks

2008

Adopted June 2007. Requirements 

implemented through District 

Rule 4621

 

23 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the 

Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high 

performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and 

certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck 

program in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions do not include 

reductions from AB 2289 improvements. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 

Appendix C.
36

State Measures

Expected 

Action 

Year

Current Status

Additional 

Evaporative 

Emissions 

Standards

2013 Action expected 2013.

Consumer Products 

Program (I & II)

2008, 

2009, 2011

Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 

4, 2009) and 76 FR 27613 (May 

12, 2011)

Pesticide 

Regulation (DPR) 2008, 2009 Submitted October 2009, revisions submitted August 2011

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p.4, 2011 Progress 

Report, Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A-3. 

Additional information from www.ca.arb.gov. 

Table 6

Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the

San Joaquin Valley

(tons per summer day 2023)

State Measure NOx VOC

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 1.0 3.0

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks 16.9 0.9

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 1.9 0.2

Consumer Products Program -- 5.0

Pesticides: DPR Regulation -- 1.2

Totals: 19.8 10.3

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1.

Table 7

Currently Creditable Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures 

in the San Joaquin Valley

(tons per summer day 2023)

State Measure NOx VOC

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 1.0 3.0

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks 16.9 0.9

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 1.9 0.2

Consumer Products Program -- 5.0

Totals: 19.8 9.1

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. attachment 1.
37

The 2007 State Strategy also includes an enforceable 

commitment to achieve aggregate emissions reductions of 46 tpd 

NOx and 25 tpd VOC in the SJV by the attainment year of 2023 that

are sufficient, in combination with existing SIP-creditable 

measures, the District’s commitments, and commitments for 

reductions under the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technologies 

provision, to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San 

Joaquin Valley by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 

2024. CARB also made enforceable commitments to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions in the SJV in the RFP milestone 

years of 2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 63;

CARB Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 6; and 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 21. See Table 8 below. The nature of 

these commitments is described in the State Strategy as follows:

The total emission reductions from the new measures 

necessary to attain the federal standards are an 

enforceable State commitment in the SIP. While the 

proposed State Strategy includes estimates of the 

emission reductions from each of the individual new 

measures, it is important to note that the commitment of 

the State Strategy is to achieve the total emission 

reductions necessary to attain the federal standards, 

which would be the aggregate of all existing and proposed 
38

new measures combined. Therefore, if a particular measure 

does not get its expected emission reductions, the State 

still commits to achieving the total aggregate emission 

reductions, whether this is realized through additional 

reductions from the new measures or from alternative 

control measures or incentive programs. If actual 

emission decreases occur in any air basin for which 

emission reduction commitments have been made that are 

greater than the projected emissions reductions from the 

adopted measures in the State Strategy, the actual 

emission decreases may be counted toward meeting ARB’s 

total emission reduction commitments.

CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3.

Table 8

CARB Commitments to Specific Aggregate Emissions Reductions

(tons per summer day)

2014 2017 2020 2023

2023

CAA 

182(e)(5)

VOC 23 —

1 24 25 —1

NOx 76 88-93 56 46 81

Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 23.

1 No commitment to VOC reductions in 2017 or to VOC reductions 

pursuant to CAA 182(e)(5) advanced technologies provision.

d. Section 182(e)(5) New or Improved Technologies Provisions
39

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme, the 

CAA recognizes that an attainment demonstration may need to rely 

to a certain extent on new or evolving technologies, given the 

relatively long time between developing the initial plan and 

attaining the standard and the degree of emissions reductions 

needed to attain. To address these needs, CAA section 182(e)(5) 

authorizes EPA to approve provisions in an extreme area plan 

which ―anticipate development of new control techniques or 

improvement of existing control technologies,‖ and to approve an 

attainment demonstration based on such provisions, if the State 

demonstrates that: (1) such provisions are not necessary to 

achieve the incremental emission reductions required during the 

first 10 years after November 15, 199024; and (2) the State has 

submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt 

contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated 

technologies do not achieve the planned reductions. CAA 

182(e)(5). The State must submit these contingency measures to 

EPA no later than 3 years before proposed implementation of 

these long-term measures, and the contingency measures must be 

―adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in 

conjunction with other approved plan provisions, to achieve the 

 

24 Consistent with provisions in the 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we interpret this 10-year 

timeframe to run from the effective date of designation for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, that is, June 15, 2004. 
40

periodic emissions reductions required by [CAA sections 

182(b)(1) or (c)(2)] and attainment by the applicable dates.‖ 

Id. 

The General Preamble further provides that the new 

technology measures contemplated by section 182(e)(5) may 

include those that anticipate future technological developments 

as well as those that require complex analyses, decision making 

and coordination among a number of government agencies. See 

General Preamble at 13524. An attainment demonstration that 

relies on long-term new technology measures under section 

182(e)(5) must identify any such measures and contain a schedule 

outlining the steps leading to final development and adoption of 

the measures. Id. The General Preamble also provides that EPA 

will set a schedule for implementing contingency measures upon 

making a finding of failure to meet a milestone, i.e., to 

achieve the periodic emissions reductions required by CAA 

sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) or to attain by the applicable 

dates. Id.

CARB and the District have demonstrated a clear need for 

emissions reduction from new control technologies or improvement 

of existing technologies to reduce air pollution in the SJV. 

Adopted control measures and enforceable commitments discussed 

above provide the majority, but not all, of the emissions 

reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in 
41

the SJV. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 54. For the balance of the 

reductions needed to attain by June 15, 2024, the 2007 State 

Strategy and 2007 Ozone Plan rely on CARB’s commitments to 

achieve additional reductions of 81 tpd NOx by 2023 from new and 

improved technologies. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 

20. The new technology provisions (also called ―long-term 

measures‖) described in the 2007 State Strategy and 2007 Ozone 

Plan are not relied on to demonstrate RFP in any year and are 

accompanied by an enforceable commitment by the State to adopt 

and submit contingency measures no later than 3 years before 

implementation, as required by CAA section 182(e)(5). 

CARB and the California districts have a longstanding 

history of successfully adopting and implementing technologyadvancing regulations and innovative control measures. They have 

worked closely with research scientists and the regulated 

industry to develop regulations that are stringent enough to 

compel technology development yet flexible enough to encourage 

industry innovations. CARB has provided a list of potential 

long-term control measures which include reduced deterioration 

of emission control equipment in passenger vehicles, tighter 

engine emission standards, cleaner ground support equipment at 

airports, and prioritizing federal transportation funding to 

support air quality goals. See pp. 56-57 of the 2007 State 

Strategy. The District has also provided a list of potential 
42

advanced control technologies and innovative approaches that 

could achieve the long-term reductions. See 2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 

11-5 to 11-10, and Chapters 7 and 8. CARB updated its list of 

potential long-term measures in both the 2009 State Strategy 

Status Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. See 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, pp. 25-27 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 

Appendix A, pp. A-8 to A-12.

To implement the long-term strategy, CARB has committed to 

a process that will ensure that the long-term measures and 

reductions are achieved by the attainment year. CARB is 

coordinating a government, private and public effort to 

establish emissions reductions goals for critical mobile and 

stationary source categories. The effort includes periodic 

assessment of technology advancement opportunities and updates 

to the Board and the public regarding new emission control 

opportunities and progress in achieving the long-term measure 

reductions. CARB’s commitment for implementing the long-term 

strategy also includes (a) sharing results through periodic

briefings to the Board, workshops, conferences, symposia, 

website postings and other means, (b) working to secure 

resources for continuing research and development of new 

technologies, and (c) developing schedules for moving from 

research to implementation. Id.
43

An initial step in the long-term strategy was the signing 

of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the U.S. EPA, CARB 

and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Districts to 

commit to developing and testing new sustainable technologies to 

accelerate progress in meeting air quality goals. The goal of 

the MOA is to help align agency research resources to evaluate 

innovative technologies and assess new monitoring equipment to 

better measure mobile and stationary source emissions. The MOA 

agencies have also established a Clean Air Technology Initiative 

to help bring together the necessary participants (e.g., 

scientists, engineers, analysts and agency specialists) to 

achieve the goals of the MOA. 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

pp. 25-27. For the SJV, the focus is on the area that straddles 

Kern and Tulare counties. This area, which frequently exceeds 

health-based air standards, has high levels of mobile source 

emissions from the goods movement corridors of Highway 99 and 

Interstate 5 as well as stationary source emissions from a 

variety of energy production facilities, farms, and agricultural 

processing operations. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A-9. For 

a summary of San Joaquin Valley funded projects, see 

http://epa.gov/region9/cleantech/projects.html.

Other State programs that may achieve emissions reductions 

to help meet CARB’s 182(e)(5) commitment include: potential cobenefits from California’s climate change programs where State 
44

legislation (Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act of 

2006 (AB 32)) aims to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) in 2020 to 

1990 levels or by about 30 percent; California’s Air Quality 

Improvement Program (AQIP), an incentive program that supports 

the deployment of hybrid and zero-emission vehicles and other 

advanced technologies; and California’s annual research program,

which identifies projects and provides funding to help provide 

timely scientific and technical information needed for air 

quality control programs. 

In addition, the District is pursuing innovative 

strategies. Its ―Fast Track‖ strategy includes opportunities to 

reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks by shifting goods 

movement to lower-emission alternatives, such as short-sea 

shipping. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded 

the Ports of Stockton, West Sacramento, and Oakland with a $30 

million grant to move goods between Oakland and the two inland 

ports over the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta. The District has 

also adopted a Technology Advancement Program (TAP) which is its 

strategic approach to encouraging innovation and development of 

new emission reduction technologies. The TAP will consist of an 

ongoing review of new technology concepts, interagency 

partnerships, funding for technology advancement programs, and 

collaborations to build and expand local capacity for research 

and development in the SJV. For more information about the SJV 
45

TAP, see

http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In 

addition to the TAP, The District has established a Regional 

Energy Efficiency Strategy to support technology development and 

deployment in the Valley. The Regional Energy Efficiency Program 

lays out goals and measures that will guide the District’s 

actions to reduce emissions caused by electricity and natural 

gas consumption in residential, industrial, and institutional 

settings. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, pp. A-11 to A-12.

Along with its commitment to the process discussed above, 

CARB has committed to submit an 8-hour ozone SIP revision by 

2020 that will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023 emission 

reduction target based on updated science and (2) identify 

additional strategies and implementing agencies needed to 

achieve the needed reductions by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, p. A-8. The District has also committed to submit by 

late 2019 SIP revisions containing the control measures that are 

necessary to achieve the long-term measure reductions by the 

attainment year and to make any other needed revisions to the 

SIP. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-04-11a p. 6. 

CARB’s 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions update and reaffirm both 

the ―long-term strategy commitment to identify and implement 

advanced technologies to reduce ozone-forming emissions in the 

State Strategy‖ and the State’s enforceable commitment ―to 
46

develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures by 2020 if 

advanced technology measures do not achieve planned reductions.‖ 

See CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 2011. Finally, CARB has 

committed to meet annually with EPA to discuss strategies to 

maximize the clean air benefits of emerging advanced 

technologies and to provide annual summaries of strategies and 

activities. See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

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

August 29, 2011.

3. Proposed Actions on the RACM Demonstration and Control 

Strategy

As described above, the District evaluated a range of 

potentially available measures for inclusion in its 2007 Ozone 

Plan and committed to adopt those it found to be reasonably 

available for implementation in the SJV. The process and the 

criteria the District used to select certain measures and reject 

others are consistent with EPA’s RACM guidance. We also describe 

above the measure evaluation processes undertaken by the SJV 

MPOs and the State. Their processes are also consistent with 

EPA’s RACM guidance. See, e.g., General Preamble at 13560 and 

Seitz memo.

Based on our review of these RACM analyses and the 

District’s and California’s adopted rules, as well as their 

commitments to adopt and implement additional controls, we 
47

propose to find that there are, at this time, no additional 

reasonably available control measures that would advance 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. 

Therefore, we propose to find that the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, 

together with the 2007 State Strategy, provides for the 

implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).

Because the SJV is designated and classified as extreme 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, CAA sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f) require the implementation of RACT for all 

major sources of VOC or NOx and all VOC sources covered by an 

EPA-issued CTG in this area. California submitted the District’s 

revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP (adopted April 16, 2009) on June 

18, 2009. We have recently proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove this RACT SIP, based on our proposal to 

determine that the RACT SIP does not adequately demonstrate 

compliance with section 182 RACT requirements for ten source 

categories. See Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley;

Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone; Proposed 

rule, signed August 31, 2011.

Under EPA’s longstanding policy, a SIP meets the RACM 

requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) if it includes all 

reasonably available measures that individually or in 

combination with other such reasonably available measures can 
48

advance attainment of the relevant standard by one year or more. 

Based on our evaluation of the potential emission reductions 

from the missing section 182 RACT controls, we propose to 

determine that the additional reductions from these rules in 

combination with other potential RACM would not result in 

earlier attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. 

See TSD, section II.C.3. 

We propose to approve the SJVUAPCD's commitments to achieve 

specific aggregate emissions reductions of NOx and VOC by 

specific years as given in Table 6-2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

shown in Table 3 above. We are not proposing to act on SJVAPCD’s 

commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on 

the schedule identified in Table 6-1 (as amended December 18, 

2008) in the 2007 Ozone Plan because, as of August 18, 2011 with 

the adoption of the Rule 4655, these commitments have all been 

fulfilled.

We are proposing to approve CARB's commitments to propose 

certain defined measures, as given in Table B-1 in 2011 Progress 

Report, Appendix B and Appendix A-7 of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. We are also proposing to approve CARB’s commitment to 

achieve the total aggregate emissions reductions necessary to 

demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in 

the SJV as given in the 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 20 
49

and shown in Table 8 above. See CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 

27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3.

Finally, we are proposing to approve the CARB’s and 

District’s long-term strategy provisions and related commitments 

in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP under the new technology 

provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5). This proposal is based on 

our proposed findings that they satisfy the two criteria in CAA 

section 182(e)(5)(A) and (B). First, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP does not rely on any of the new technology reductions to 

demonstrate RFP in any milestone year between 2008 and 2020. 

CARB has committed to achieve 81 tpd of NOx reductions through 

new technology measures approved under section 182(e)(5) only in 

the attainment year (2023). We note that the amount and relative 

proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long-term 

adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compared to measures 

already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near-term 

adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIP update, and 

that EPA will not approve a SIP revision that contains an 

increase in the amount or relative proportion of section 

182(e)(5) new technology measures without a convincing showing 

in a SIP revision that the technologies relied upon in the nearterm rules have been found to be technologically infeasible or 

ineffective in achieving the expected emissions reductions.
50

Second, CARB has submitted an enforceable commitment to 

submit adopted contingency measures to EPA by 2020 as required 

by CAA section 182(e)(5). See CARB Resolution 11-22, July 21, 

2011. These contingency measures must be adequate to produce 

emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other 

approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions 

reductions required by CAA sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) and to 

attain by the applicable dates. See CAA 182(e)(5). Following the 

State’s submittal of these contingency measures, EPA will 

approve or disapprove the provisions in accordance with CAA 

section 110.

C. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires states with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as serious or above to submit 

plans that demonstrate attainment of the applicable standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the outside date 

established in the CAA.

25. The attainment demonstration is due 

within three years of the area’s designation as nonattainment 

(40 CFR 51.908) and should include:

 

25 EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 51.903(a) translates the maximum 

attainment periods in Table 1 of section 181, which are 

specifically linked to enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, for 

purposes of attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
51

(1) technical analyses to locate and identify sources of 

emissions that are causing violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS

within the nonattainment area;

(2) adopted measures with schedules for implementation and 

other means and techniques necessary and appropriate for 

attainment; and

(3) contingency measures required under section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA.

See 70 FR 71612 at 71615.

The requirements for the first two items are described in 

the sections on emissions inventories and RACM/RACT above 

(sections IV.A. and IV.C.) and in the sections on the air 

quality modeling and attainment demonstration that follow 

immediately below. Requirements for the third item are described 

in the section on contingency measures (IV.F.).

2. Air Quality Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires SIPs for ozone 

nonattainment areas to include a ―demonstration that the plan, 

as revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone [NAAQS] by 

the applicable attainment date. This attainment demonstration 

must be based on photochemical grid modeling or any other 

analytical method determined by the Administrator, in the 

Administrator's discretion, to be at least as effective.‖ Air 

quality modeling is used to establish emissions attainment 
52

targets, that is, the combination of emissions of ozone

precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding the 

relevant standard, and to assess whether the proposed control 

strategy will result in attainment of that standard. Air quality 

modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air 

quality monitoring data from that year in order to evaluate

model performance. Once the performance is determined to be 

acceptable, future year changes to the emissions inventory are 

simulated to determine the relationship between emissions 

reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the air 

basin. The procedures for modeling ozone as part of an 

attainment demonstration 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‖26 (Guidance).

The air quality modeling that underpins the SJV 2007 Ozone 

Plan is described in Chapter 3 and documented in Appendix F. We 

provide a brief description of the modeling and a summary of our 

evaluation of it below. More detailed information about the 

 

26 ―Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 8-Hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze‖, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 

2007. Additional EPA modeling guidance can be found in 

―Guideline on Air Quality Models‖ in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.
53

modeling and our evaluation are available in section II.B. of 

the TSD.

CARB performed the air quality modeling for the 2007 Ozone 

Plan. 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 the 2007 

Ozone Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, including support for the 

multi-million dollar Central California Ozone Study (CCOS). CCOS 

is a cooperative effort involving California cities, State and 

local and air pollution control agencies, federal agencies, 

industry groups, academics, and contractors. Field data for CCOS 

were collected during the 4 months from June through October

2000 and included five several-day intensive monitoring periods. 

Data and modeling results based on the CCOS study provided a 

solid foundation for the 2007 Ozone Plan.

The Plan includes an attainment demonstration using 

photochemical modeling with the Comprehensive Air Quality Model 

with Extensions (CAMx) model, incorporating the [California] 

Statewide Air Pollution Research Center (SAPRC) chemical 

mechanism, and meteorological fields from the Mesoscale Model 

version 5 (MM5). In addition to the July 29-August 2, 2000

episode using CCOS data, CARB modeled ambient ozone levels

during July 9-13, 1999 using routinely available meteorological 

and air quality data.
54

EPA recommends that States prepare modeling protocols as 

part of their modeled attainment demonstrations. Guidance, p. 

133. The Guidance at pp. 133-134 describes the topics to be 

addressed in this modeling protocol. A modeling protocol should 

detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all phases of 

the modeling analysis, such as describing the background and 

objectives, creating a schedule and organizational structure, 

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 prior to actual modeling.

The 2007 Ozone Plan’s modeling protocol is contained in

Appendix C of the CARB Staff Report27 in the Plan. The protocol 

covers all of the topics recommended in the Guidance, including 

model and episode selection, meteorological and emission data 

preparation, and performance testing. 

The 2007 Ozone Plan’s air quality model performance is 

discussed in Appendix F, including extensive statistical and 

 

27 ―Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing Strategies to 

Attain the Federal 8-hour Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central 

California‖, California Air Resources Board, 5/22/2007, included 

as Appendix C to the ―Final Draft, Staff Report: Analysis of the 

San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan‖, State of California Air 

Resources Board, 5/30/2007. (―Staff Report‖ at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/sjv8hr/sjvozone.htm)
55

graphical analysis demonstrating adequate overall model 

performance. The attainment demonstration for a given monitoring 

location used only those days that satisfied a number of 

performance criteria. The sensitivity testing described by CARB 

provides assurance that the model is adequately simulating the 

physical and chemical processes leading to ozone in the 

atmosphere and that the model responds in a scientifically 

reasonable way to emissions changes.

The Plan’s Appendix F also provides extensive documentation 

on the Relative Reduction Factors, which are the key results 

from the model for use in the attainment test, and the details 

of their calculation. The documentation also includes the 

results of modeling runs with various combinations of VOC and NOx

reductions, to illustrate alternative control strategies and 

establish a ―carrying capacity‖, a combination of VOC and NOx

emissions consistent with attainment of the ozone standard. EPA 

proposes to conclude that the attainment tests are adequate and 

consistent with EPA guidance.

In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which 

focuses on locations with an air quality monitor, EPA generally 

requires an unmonitored area analysis. The unmonitored area 

analysis uses a combination of model output and ambient data to 

identify areas that might exceed the NAAQS if monitors were 

located there. It ensures that a control strategy leads to 
56

reductions in ozone in unmonitored locations that might have 

baseline (and future) ambient ozone levels exceeding the NAAQS. 

In order to examine unmonitored areas in all portions of the 

modeling domain, EPA recommends use of interpolated spatial 

fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs. 

Guidance, p. 29. CARB’s unmonitored area analysis28 uses EPA’s 

MATS software. Based on this analysis CARB concluded that there 

are no unmonitored ozone peaks in the modeling domain that would 

violate the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Finally, the Plan’s Appendix F concludes with 

―Corroborative Analyses/Weight Of Evidence Elements‖, containing 

a supplemental analyses in support of the attainment 

demonstration. These analyses include ozone air quality trends, 

meteorologically adjusted ozone trends, and precursor emission 

trends, all of which show continued progress and support the 

conclusion that the attainment demonstration is sound.

Base on our review, EPA proposes to find that the air 

quality modeling provides an adequate basis for the RACM/RACT, 

RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP.

3. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstration

 

28 ―Unmonitored Area Analysis for Ozone in the San Joaquin 

Valley‖, California Air Resources Board, August 12, 2011. 

SJV_unmonitored_ozone.pdf
57

Section 11.2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan includes the initial 

attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in 

the SJV. The 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions update this demonstration

to reflect changes to future year inventories and adopted 

controls. 

The air quality modeling described above demonstrates that 

a 75 percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 2002 base year 

level is necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. A 

75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an 

attainment target level of 160 tpd NOx. See 2007 State Strategy, 

p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 

base year NOx emissions downward by 12 percent based on improved 

inventory methodologies and data. See Section IV.A. above.

Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal approach for 

evaluating the impact of the base year inventory changes on the 

attainment target would be to perform new air quality modeling. 

Both Agencies also recognize the time and effort involved in 

such modeling for an area that is as large and diverse as the 

San Joaquin Valley. To address the need for remodeling, CARB 

has committed to update the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan modeling to 

reflect the emissions inventory improvements and any other new 

information by December 31, 2014 or by the date the SIPs are due 

for the revised 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first. See 
58

CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B8.

As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB qualitatively evaluated the impact on the 

attainment target of the revision to this base year inventory 

and concluded that the 160 tpd target remains viable. See 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-9. The 160 tpd target represents a 72 

percent reduction from the revised 2002 base year level. CARB 

also recognized, however, that a reduction of up to 75 percent 

from the revised baseline (an attainment target level of 141 

tpd) may be necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

in the SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to 

achieve all emissions reductions that are necessary to provide 

for attainment. See CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3.

As EPA stated in its comment letter on the proposed 2011 

Ozone SIP Revisions,29 we believe that a 75 percent reduction 

from the base year NOx emissions level, based on the modeling 

provided in the Plan as submitted in 2007, provides the best 

available estimate of the NOx reductions needed to reach 

attainment. The predicted ozone concentrations from the existing 

modeling matched the monitored ozone concentration from the 

summer 2000 episode fairly well, despite having what we now know 

 

29 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9,

to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, July 20, 2011.
59

to be overly high emissions inputs. The model, therefore, may be 

underpredicting ozone concentrations and the original 160 tpd NOx

target may result in higher ozone levels than the existing 

modeling predicted. Applying the 75 percent reduction from the 

existing modeling against the revised base year inventory 

compensates for this underprediction. This equates to a target 

level of 141 tpd compared to the original target level of 160 

tpd. 

In our comment letter, we recommended that CARB commit to 

revising the modeling by a specific date and to commit, in the 

interim, to achieving a 75 percent reduction in NOx from the 

revised 2002 base year levels by 2023. We noted that these 

recommendations are consistent with CARB’s continuing strong 

commitment and efforts to achieve the emission reductions needed 

for attainment of the air quality standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley and the rest of California.

In response, CARB included a commitment to update the 2007 

SIP modeling for the SJV to reflect emissions inventory 

improvements and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the 

emissions reduction necessary to provide for attainment. CARB 

has stated that these commitments are sufficient to address the 

concerns we raised in our comment letter. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions Supplement, p. 1.
60

EPA notes that NOx reductions needed to reach a target level 

of 141 tpd relative to the reductions needed to meet a target 

level of 160 tpd are part of CARB’s long-term commitment

discussed above in section IV.B.2.d. The current estimate of the 

NOx reductions needed from new technologies, based on adopted 

measures and CARB’s remaining commitments for reductions from 

defined measures, is approximately 50 tpd. See Table 10 below.

This level of reductions is well within CARB’s existing 

commitment to achieve 81 tpd of NOx emissions reductions from new 

or improved technologies. See 2009 State Strategy Status Report, 

p. 21.

Table 9 below summarizes our evaluation of the attainment 

demonstration taking into account emission reductions achieved 

to date and other updates.

Table 9

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV’s

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

(tons per summer day, 2023)

NOx VOC

A

Revised 2002 baseline 

emissions level 565.2 457.5

B Attainment target level 141 342

C

Total reductions needed from 

2002 baseline levels to 

demonstrate attainment (A – B)

424.2 115.5

D

Attainment year baseline 

emissions level 226.6 403.3

E

Reductions from baseline 

measures and improvements to 

the emissions inventories (A338.6 54.2
61

D)

F

Reductions needed from control 

strategy measures including,

for NOx, reductions from new

technologies (B - D)

85.6 61.3

Source: TSD, Table D-11.

As shown in this table, the majority of the emissions 

reductions that the State projects are needed for attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV by 2024 come from baseline 

reductions. These baseline reductions are from existing control 

measures including numerous adopted District and State measures,

which generally have been approved by EPA either through the SIP 

process or the CAA section 209 waiver process. See Appendices A 

and B of the TSD. Also included in the baseline are improvements 

to the emissions inventories, discussed above in section IV.A. 

The remaining reductions needed for attainment are to be 

achieved through the District’s and CARB’s enforceable 

commitments to reduce emissions in the SJV or through their 

commitments to develop and deploy new technologies pursuant to 

CAA section 182(e)(5). Since the submittal of the 2007 Ozone

Plan and 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB have adopted 

measures that have significantly reduced the amount of emission 

reductions needed for attainment that remain as commitments. See 

Table 10.

Table 10

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments

based on SIP-Creditable Measures 
62

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx VOC

A

Total reductions needed from 

baseline and control strategy 

measures to attain (A-B)

423.9 115.5

B

Reductions from baseline 

measures and adjustments due to 

emissions inventory improvements

338.6 54.2

C

Total reductions from approved 

measures (Tables 4 and 7)

32.4 53.6

D

Total reductions remaining as 

commitments and, for NOx, 

reductions from new technologies 

(A-B-C)

53.2 7.7

E

Reductions remaining as CARB 

enforceable commitments1 4.7 5.9

F

Reductions remaining as SJVAPCD

enforceable commitments 0 1.8

G

Total reductions remaining as 

reductions from new technologies

(CAA section 182(e)(5))

48.6

H

Percent of total reductions 

needed remaining as commitments 

not including NOx reductions from 

new technologies 

1.1% 6.7%

1 Calculated by subtracting from CARB’s 2023 46 tpd NOx

commitments (Table 8) the adjustment to baseline from State and

federal sources from 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, 

Attachment 1 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from currently 

SIP-creditable State measures on Table 7 (19.8 tpd).

As shown in Table 9, reductions in the projected baseline 

inventory from measures already adopted by the District and 

State (both prior to and as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 

State Strategy) that EPA has approved or proposed for approval 

provide the great majority of the emissions reductions needed to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

SJV. The balance is in the form of either enforceable 

commitments to specific aggregate emissions reductions by the 

District and CARB (lines E and F in Table 10 above) or 
63

reductions from new or improved technologies under CAA section 

182(e)(5) (line G in Table 10). In this section we discuss the 

enforceable commitments that are part of the attainment 

demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP.

We believe that, with respect to the 2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone

SIP, circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable 

commitments as part of the attainment demonstration.

30 As shown 

in Table 9 above, the majority of NOx emissions reductions and a 

substantial fraction of the VOC reductions needed to demonstrate 

RFP and attainment in the SJV come from rules and regulations 

that were adopted prior to 2007, i.e., from the baseline 

measures. As a result of these State and District efforts, most 

sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area are

currently subject to stringent rules adopted prior to the State 

Strategy’s and the Plan’s development, leaving few opportunities 

(and generally more technologically and economically challenging 

ones) to further reduce emissions. In the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

the 2007 State Strategy, the District and CARB identified 

potential control measures that could contribute many of the 

additional emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 2007 

 

30 Based on SIP-creditable measures adopted to date, the SJV 

2007 8-hour ozone SIP does not rely on enforceable commitments 

to aggregate emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet 

any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we 

discuss here only those enforceable commitments relied on to 

demonstrate attainment. 
64

Ozone Plan, Appendix I and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. 

However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement 

these measures went beyond the November 2007 submittal date of 

the SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP. These circumstances warrant the 

District’s and CARB’s reliance on enforceable commitments as 

part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan and 

2007 State. 

Given the State’s demonstrated need for reliance on 

enforceable commitments, we now consider the three factors EPA 

uses to determine whether the use of enforceable commitments in 

lieu of adopted measures to meet a CAA planning requirements is

approvable: (a) do the commitments address a limited portion of 

the statutorily-required program; (b) is the state capable of 

fulfilling its commitments; and (c) are the commitments for a 

reasonable and appropriate period of time.

a. The 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 to demonstrate RFP and 

attainment in a nonattainment area. For this calculation, 

reductions assigned to the new technologies provision (CAA 

section 182(e)(5)) are not counted as commitments.31

 

31 CAA section 182(e)(5) specifically allows EPA to approve an 

attainment demonstration that relies on reductions from new 
65

As shown Table 9, the remaining portion of the enforceable 

commitments, after accounting for approved measures and advanced 

technology measures, needed to demonstrate attainment of the 8-

hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC 

and, approximately 4.6 tpd of NOx. When compared to the total 

reductions needed to demonstrate attainment (not including the 

CAA section 182(e)(5) reductions in the attainment 

demonstration), the remaining portion of the enforceable 

commitments represents at most 6.7 percent of the needed VOC and 

1.1 percent of the needed NOx. 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), the Houston-Galveston 1-hour ozone plan at 66 FR 57160 

(November 14, 2001), proposed approval of the SJV 2007 PM2.5 SIP 

at 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 2011), and proposed approval of the 

South Coast PM2.5 SIP at 76 FR 41562 (July 14, 2011). Thus, the 

State’s commitment addresses a limited proportion of the 

required emissions reductions. 

b. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitments

 

technologies. This provision is separate from the requirement in 

CAA section 172(c)(6) for enforceable emissions limitations 

under which enforceable commitments are considered. As a result, 

reductions attributed in the attainment demonstration to new 

technologies are not considered part of the State’s enforceable 

commitments for the purposes of determining the percent of the 

reductions needed for attainment that remain as commitments.
66

For the second factor, we consider whether the State and 

District are capable of fulfilling their commitments.

As discussed above, CARB has adopted and submitted the 2009 

State Strategy Status Report and the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,

which update and revise the 2007 State Strategy. These

submittals show that CARB has made significant progress in 

meeting its enforceable commitments for the San Joaquin Valley.

The District has already exceeded its commitments for reducing 

NOx emissions for the attainment year of 2023. See Tables 3 and 4 

above and Table D-4 in the TSD. It also has adopted additional

rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) that are projected to achieve NOx

reductions in the attainment year. These reductions, however, 

are not currently creditable to the attainment and RFP

demonstrations. In addition, the District has adopted revisions 

to District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines) that are likely to achieve substantial NOx reductions.

See SJVAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report Proposed Amendments To 

Rule 4702 (Internal Combustion Engines), August 18, 2011. It has 

also adopted Rule 4566 (Organic Materials Composting Operations) 

that will achieve an estimated 19 tpd reductions in VOC (in SIP 

currency) by 2017. Finally, the District is continuing to work 

to identify and adopt additional measures to reduce emissions.

Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District 

have well-funded incentive grant programs to reduce emissions 
67

from the on- and off-road engine fleets. Reductions from several 

of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in 

the attainment demonstration. See, for example, SJVAPCD, 2008 

PM2.5 Progress Report (May 2011), section 2.3.

Given the State's and District’s efforts to date to reduce 

emissions, we believe that the State and District are capable of 

meeting their enforceable commitments to adopt measures to 

reduce emissions of NOx and VOC to the levels needed in 

combination with reductions from the new technologies provision 

to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin 

Valley by CAA deadline of June 15, 2024.

c. The Commitments are for a Reasonable and Appropriate 

Timeframe

For the third and last factor, we consider whether the 

commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.

In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to the 

levels needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the 

San Joaquin Valley, the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy 

included ambitious rule development, adoption, and 

implementation schedules, which both the District and CARB have 

substantially met. Given that almost all the emissions 

reductions committed to by District and CARB have already been 

achieved and the rules that are likely to achieve the few 

remaining ones are scheduled for adoption by 2013, these
68

schedules provide sufficient time to achieve the few remaining 

reductions needed to attain (when considered with the emissions 

reductions provided by the advanced technology provision) by the 

applicable attainment date of June 15, 2024. See Tables 2 and 5

above. Thus, we find that the commitments are for a reasonable 

and appropriate timeframe. 

4. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment demonstration, EPA 

must make several findings:

First, we must find that the demonstration’s technical 

bases--emissions inventories and air quality modeling--are 

adequate. As discussed above in sections IV.A. and IV.C.2., we 

are proposing to approve the revised base year emissions 

inventory and to find the air quality modeling adequate to 

support the attainment demonstration.

Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expeditious 

attainment through the implementation of all RACM. As discussed 

above in section II.C., we are proposing to approve the RACM 

demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1).

Third, we must find that the emissions reductions that are 

relied on for attainment are creditable and are sufficient to 

provide for attainment. As shown on Table 9, the 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP relies primarily on adopted and approved/waived rules 
69

to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 8-

hour ozone standards in the SJV by June 15, 2024. The balance of 

the reductions projected to be needed for attainment is 

currently in the form of enforceable commitments to adopt 

measures to achieve aggregate tonnage reductions of VOC or NOx 

in the near term from available technologies and an enforceable 

commitment to adopt and submit in the longer term measures 

relying on the development and deployment of new technologies 

that will achieve specific aggregate tonnage reductions of NOx.

EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu 

of adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when 

circumstances warrant them and the commitments meet three 

criteria. As discussed in above in section IV.C.3., we propose 

to find that circumstances here warrant the consideration of 

enforceable commitments and that the three criteria are met: 1) 

the commitments constitute a limited portion of the required 

emissions reductions, 2) both the State and the District have 

demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments, and 3) 

the commitments are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these 

evaluations, we are proposing to approve the enforceable 

commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 

8-Hour Ozone SIP.

CAA section 182(e)(5) allows extreme ozone nonattainment 

area plans under certain conditions to include provisions for 
70

the development of new technologies and allows EPA to approve 

attainment demonstrations based, in part, on those provisions. 

For the reasons discussed above in section IV.B., we propose to 

find that California has met the conditions for relying on the 

CAA’s new technologies provisions in its attainment 

demonstration for the SJV. 

As discussed above in section IV.C.2. above, the SJV Ozone 

Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007, demonstrates that a 

75 percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 2002 base year 

level is necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

Since the adoption of the SJV ozone SIP in 2007, the base year 

NOx emissions level has be revised downward by 12 percent due to 

new inventory methodologies and data. Both CARB and EPA 

recognize that the ideal approach for evaluating the impact of 

these base year inventory changes on the attainment target in 

the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan would be to perform new air quality 

modeling, but both also recognize the time and effort involved 

in such modeling. CARB has committed to update the SJV 2007 

Ozone Plan modeling to reflect the emissions inventory 

improvements and any other new information by December 31, 2014 

or by the date the SIPs are due for the revised 8-hour ozone 

standard whichever comes first. See CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3 

and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8. EPA is proposing to 

approve this commitment.
71

EPA believes that a 75 percent reduction from the base year 

NOx emissions level from the existing modeling provides the best 

currently available estimate of the NOx reductions needed to 

reach attainment. CARB has committed to, and has reaffirmed its 

commitment to achieve the reductions needed for attainment in 

the SJV. See CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), 

Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 13, and 

CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3. It has also stated that these 

commitments are sufficient to address the attainment needs of 

the SJV. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1. As 

discussed above, CARB’s commitment to achieving 81 tpd of NOx

emissions reductions from new technologies is sufficient to 

cover any reductions that may be needed for attainment due to 

the changes to the base year inventory.

For the foregoing reasons, we propose to approve the 

attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP.

D. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration 

1. Requirements for RFP Demonstrations

CAA section 172(c)(2) requires that plans for nonattainment 

areas 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 

[title 1, part D] or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 
72

applicable [standard] by the applicable date.‖ CAA Section 

182(b)(1) specifically requires that SIPs for ozone 

nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate or above 

demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions between the 

years of 1990 and 1996. For ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as serious or higher, CAA Section 182(c)(2)(B) also requires, in 

addition to the 15 percent reduction required under CAA 

182(b)(1), a three percent per year reduction (averaged over 

three-year periods) of ozone precursor emissions until 

attainment.

The ozone implementation rule interprets the RFP 

requirements for the purposes of the 1997 ozone standards, 

establishing requirements for RFP that depend on the area’s 

classification as well as whether the area has an approved 15 

percent rate of progress plan for VOC under CAA section 

182(b)(1) for the 1-hour ozone standard that covers the entire

8-hour ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 51.910(d) and 70 FR 

71612. In 1997 EPA approved a 15 percent rate of progress plan 

for the SJV which covers the current 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

nonattainment area. See 62 FR 1150, 1172 (January 8, 1997). As a 

result, the area does not need to demonstrate another 15 percent 

reduction in VOC. Instead, under the ozone implementation rule, 

the 8-hour ozone SIP for SJV must provide for an average of 

three percent per year of VOC and/or NOx emissions reductions for 
73

(1) the six-year period beginning January 1 of the year 

following the year used for the baseline and (2) all remaining 

three-year periods after the first six-year period out to the 

area's attainment date. 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as 

specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions 

reductions from all SIP approved, federally promulgated, or 

otherwise SIP creditable measures that occur after the baseline 

are creditable for purposes of demonstrating RFP targets are 

met. The implementation rule also sets the baseline for RFP 

calculations as 2002.

The RFP demonstration must calculate and exclude the noncreditable reductions described in CAA 182(b)(1)(D). These noncreditable reductions include emissions reductions from pre-1990 

federal motor vehicle programs. The method for calculating the 

target emissions levels is found in Appendix A to the preamble 

of the ozone implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612 at 71696. 

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

California has made several submittals to address the RFP 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SJV. The 

last of these is found in Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions. This revised demonstration incorporates the inventory 

revisions described in section IV.A. above as well as reductions 

from measures that have been adopted since the 2007 Ozone Plan’s 
74

submittal except for those that EPA has determined by rule are 

not currently creditable. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. 2. 

3. Proposed Action on the RFP Demonstration

CARB calculated the RFP target levels following the method 

provided in the ozone implementation rule and preamble. See 40 

CFR 51.910 and 70 FR 71612 at 71631-71650. EPA has made minor 

adjustments to the State’s calculations to remove reductions 

from currently unapproved measures (e.g., pesticides). A summary 

of our evaluation of the State’s RFP demonstration, taking into 

account these minor adjustments, is shown in Table 11 below. The 

detailed analysis can be found in section II.G. of the TSD. As 

shown in the Table 11, the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides 

for RFP in each milestone years. We propose, therefore, to 

approve the SIP’s RFP demonstration.
75

Table 11

San Joaquin Rate of Progress Demonstrations

(summer planning tons per day)

VOC Calculation

2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Target level of VOC 

needed to meet ROP 

requirement

365.0 327.2 293.6 264.4 239.7 218.1

Baseline VOC in milestone 

year (with uncreditable 

reductions removed)

408.8 355.9 333.5 331.0 333.0 341.5

Apparent shortfall 43.8 28.7 39.9 66.6 93.3 123.4

Percent apparent 

shortfall in VOC 9.8% 6.5% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6% 28.6%

Shortfall previous 

provided by NOx

substitution

0.0% 9.8% 9.6% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6%

Percent actual shortfall 

in VOC 9.8% -3.3% -0.4% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0%

NOx Calculations

Adjusted NOx baseline 

(MVCP and uncreditable 

reductions removed) 

425.5 359.6 309.0 260.3 226.5 196.5

Change in NOx since 2002

adopted controls only 122.9 184.4 213.4 278.0 310.8 537.0

Percent change in NOx

since 2002 22.4% 33.9% 42.8% 51.5% 57.8% 63.4%

Percent change in NOx

used for VOC substitution 

through previous 

0% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 15.8% 22.0%
76

milestone

Percent reductions since 

2002 available for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in the 

milestone year

22.4% 24.1% 33.0% 41.8% 41.8% 41.1%

Percent change since 2002 

used for VOC substitution 

in the milestone year, 

percent

9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0%

Percent change since 2002 

surplus after meeting 

substitution in the 

milestone year

12.6% 24.1% 33.0% 35.6% 35.5% 34.1%

RFP met? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
77

E. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control 

Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT Increases, To 

Provide for RFP and Attainment

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Growth, to 

Provide for RFP and Attainment

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as 

severe or extreme submit transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures (TCM) sufficient to offset any 

growth in VOC emissions from growth in VMT or the number of 

vehicle trips, and to provide (along with other measures) the 

reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement. CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires that states choose and 

implement such measures as are specified in section 108(f), to 

the extent needed to demonstrate attainment. In selecting the 

measures, Congress directed that States ―should ensure adequate 

access to downtown, other commercial, and residential areas and 

should avoid measures that increase or relocate emissions and 

congestion rather than reduce them.‖ CAA 182(d)(1)(A).

EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three 

required elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting 

emissions growth, attainment of the RFP reduction, and 

attainment of the ozone standard) as separable. As to the first 

element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions 
78

growth), EPA has historically interpreted this CAA provision to 

allow areas to meet the requirement by demonstrating that 

emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the 

attainment year. General Preamble at 13521-13522.32

2. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation 

Control Measures to Offset Emissions Growth, to Provide for RFP 

and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

Information in 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions reproduced in Table 

12 below shows that on-road mobile source emissions of VOC and 

NOx decline steadily from 2008 to 2023. This decline in emissions 

is due to EPA’s and California’s on-road mobile source programs, 

California’s clean fuels and SmogCheck programs, and CARB’s inuse truck and bus rule. As discussed above in section IV.B., 

these programs are fully creditable for SIP planning purposes in 

attainment and RFP demonstrations, including demonstrating

compliance with CAA section 182(d)(1). The on-road emissions in 

 

32 See also 60 FR 48896 (September 21, 1995) approval of 

Illinois’ vehicle miles traveled plan for the Chicago area; 62 

FR 23410 (April 30, 1997) and 62 FR 35100 (June 30, 1997), 

proposed and final approval of New Jersey’s 15 percent ROP plan 

and other provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut 

ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 23849 (May 10, 2001), approval 

of the New York’s attainment demonstration and related 

provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone 

nonattainment area; 66 FR 57247 (November 14, 2001), approval of 

the VMT offset plan for the Houston-Galveston ozone 

nonattainment area; 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005), approval of the 

Washington, D.C. area’s 1-hour attainment demonstration and 

related provisions; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 2005), approval of 

Atlanta’s VMT plan.
79

Table 12 are calculated using EMFAC2007 (the most recent EPAapproved mobile source emissions model) and the same planning 

assumptions used to develop the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budget in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, p. C-1. As described above in section IV.B., the SJV 

MPOs evaluated a wide variety of transportation control

strategies and measures, including those measures listed in CAA 

section 108(f), and determined that there were no combinations 

of reasonable measures that would expedite attainment of the 8-

hour ozone standard in the SJV. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix C.

Table 12

On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley

2008-2023

(tons per summer day)

Year 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC 78 66 50 43 39 37

NOx 229 183 153 115 91 69

Source: 2011 8-Hour Ozone SIP Revision, Appendix B, page. B-3.

3. Proposed Action Transportation Control Strategies and 

Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Growth, to 

Provide for RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

Because both VOC and NOx emissions from on-road mobile 

sources decline steadily over the entire time period covered by 

the 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP,33 the SIP need not include additional 

 

33 CARB only presented mobile source emissions estimates for the 

RFP milestone years rather than for each year between 2011 and 

2023. We believe this adequately meets the CAA section 182(d)(3) 
80

transportation control strategies and TCM to offset growth in 

emissions from growth in VMT. Therefore, we propose to find that 

the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP meets the requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) to include transportation control 

strategies and TCM sufficient to offset any growth in emissions 

from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips.

In Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 

(9th Cir. 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

held that, with respect to the first element, section 

182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requires States to adopt transportation 

control measures and strategies whenever vehicle emissions are 

projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle 

miles traveled not increased, even when aggregate vehicle 

emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for 

rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 

(consolidated), Docket Entry 41-1, Petition for Panel Rehearing.

The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its mandate in the 

Association of Irritated Residents case, and EPA has not adopted 

the court’s interpretation for the reasons set forth in the 

Agency’s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by the 

court. If the court denies the Agency’s petition for rehearing 

 

requirement. There is nothing in the record to indicate that 

mobile sources emissions in the SJV are likely to increase 

between milestone years before returning to their historic 

downward trend in the milestone years. 
81

and issues its mandate before EPA issues a final rule on the SJV

2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, then we anticipate that we would not be 

able to finalize approval of the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with 

respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) 

of section 182(d)(1)(A). Therefore, in today’s action, and in 

the alternative to the proposed approval, we are simultaneously 

proposing to disapprove the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP with 

respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) 

of section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan’s failure to include 

sufficient transportation control strategies and TCM to offset 

the emissions from growth in VMT. If EPA were to finalize the 

proposed disapproval, the area would be eligible for a 

protective finding under the transportation conformity rule 

because the submitted SIP contains adopted control measures and 

enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions 

reductions requirements for reasonable further progress and 

attainment. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).34

As discussed above in section IV.D., we are proposing to 

find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP 

 

34 An area would not be eligible for a protective finding under 

the transportation conformity regulation if EPA finalizes a 

disapproval of a control strategy implementation plan revision 

(i.e., a plan that demonstrates reasonable further progress or 

attainment) because the plan revision does not contain adopted 

control measures or written commitments to enforceable control 

measures that fully satisfy the emissions reductions 

requirements relevant to the statutory provision for which the 

implementation plan revision was submitted. 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3).
82

consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, we also propose to find that the SIP 

meets the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include 

transportation control strategies and TCM as necessary to 

provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to 

meet the applicable RFP requirement.

Finally, as discussed in sections IV.B. and IV.C. above, we 

are proposing to find that the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 

provides expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Therefore, we propose to find that the SIP meets the 

requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include measures to 

the extent needed to demonstrate attainment.

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under the CAA, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas classified 

under subpart 2 as moderate or above must include in their SIPs 

contingency measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional controls to be 

implemented in the event the area fails to meet a RFP milestone 

or fails to attain by its attainment date. These contingency 

measures must be fully adopted rules or measures which are ready 

for implementation quickly upon failure to meet milestones or 

attainment. The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the 

contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and 
83

indicate that the measures will be implemented without 

significant further action by the State or EPA. See 68 FR 32802, 

32837 and 70 FR 71612, 71650. 

Additional guidance on the CAA contingency measure 

provisions is found in the General Preamble at 13510–13512 and 

13520. The guidance indicates that states should adopt and 

submit contingency measures sufficient to provide a 3 percent 

emissions reduction from the adjusted RFP base year. EPA 

concludes this level of reductions is generally acceptable to 

offset emission increases while States are correcting their 

SIPs. These reductions should be beyond what is needed to meet 

the attainment and/or RFP requirement. States may use reductions 

of either VOC or NOx or a combination of both to meet the 

contingency measure requirements. General Preamble at 13520, 

footnote 6. EPA guidance also provides that contingency measures 

could be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or 

attainment date.

35 Consistent with this policy, states are 

allowed to use excess reductions from already adopted measures 

to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency 

measures requirement. This is because the purpose of contingency 

measures is to provide extra reductions that are not relied on 

 

35 Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs 

Branch to Air Directors, ―Contingency Measures for Ozone and 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,‖ June 1, 1992.
84

for RFP or attainment that will provide continued progress while 

the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet 

the required milestone. Nothing in the CAA precludes a State 

from implementing such measures before they are triggered. This 

approach has been approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 

15844 (April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana portion of the 

Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 

1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of the Chicago area 15 

percent ROP plan); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed approval 

of the Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan); and 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 

634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the Massachusetts and 

Connecticut 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations). In the only 

adjudicated challenge to this approach, the court upheld it. See

LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651.

In addition, CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to

―approve provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme 

Area which anticipate development of new control techniques or 

improvement of existing control techniques, and an attainment 

demonstration based on such provisions,‖ if the State meets 

certain criteria. See CAA 182(e)(5). Such plan provisions may 

include enforceable commitments to submit, at a later date,

contingency measures for failure to attain under CAA section 

172(c)(9), in addition to the contingency measures to be 

implemented if the anticipated technologies approved under 
85

section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. These 

contingency measures must be submitted no later than three years 

before proposed implementation of the plan provisions and 

approved or disapproved by EPA in accordance with CAA section 

110. Id.

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

Contingency measure provisions are described in Section 

11.6. of the 2007 Ozone Plan and Appendix D of the 2007 State 

Strategy as updated on February 1, 2008. The provisions were 

again updated in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A. To 

provide for contingency measures for failure to make RFP, the 

SIP relies on surplus NOx reductions in the RFP demonstration. 

See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, Attachment A, p. A-3. See also 

Table 11 above. To provide for contingency measures for failure 

to attain, the SIP relies in part on the additional incremental 

emissions reductions resulting from fleet turnover in the 2024.

Fleet turnover in 2024 is expected to reduce NOx emissions by 2 

tpd and VOC emissions by less than 0.5 tpd. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions Supplement, Attachment 2.

Additionally, as discussed above in section IV.B.2.d., we 

are proposing to determine that CARB and the SJVUAPCD have 

satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for reliance on the 

new technology provision as part of the attainment demonstration 

in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. Based on the State’s anticipated 
86

development of these new technologies, CARB has submitted an 

enforceable commitment to submit, no later than 2020, additional 

contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) that meet the 

requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 

172(c)(9), in addition to contingency measures to be implemented 

if the anticipated long-term measures approved pursuant to

section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. See CARB 

Resolution No. 11-22 (July 21, 2011).

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures

As discussed above in section IV.D., we are proposing to 

approve the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP’s RFP demonstration. As seen 

in the second to last line on Table 11 above (the RFP 

demonstration), there are sufficient excess reductions of NOx in 

each milestone year beyond those needed to meet the next RFP 

percent reduction requirement to provide the 3 percent of 

adjusted baseline emissions reductions needed to meet the RFP 

contingency measure requirement for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020.

No RFP contingency measures are needed for 2008, since the 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions demonstrate that SJV has already met 

its 2008 milestone. See Table 11 above. As a result, contingency 

measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP benchmark will never 

be triggered and thus are not needed. 

Contingency measures for failure to attain – The 

incremental additional emissions reductions that will occur in 
87

2024 (the year after the attainment year) from the continuing 

implementation of both on- and –off road motor vehicle controls 

may be used to meet the contingency measure requirement for 

failure to attain. For the SJV, these reductions are 2 tpd of NOx

and less than 0.5 tpd of VOC.

In addition, based on our proposal to determine that the 

State has satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for 

reliance on long-term measures as part of the attainment 

demonstration in the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to 

approve CARB’s enforceable commitment to submit, no later than 

2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 

182(e)(5) that meet the requirements for attainment contingency 

measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency 

measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures 

approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned 

reductions.36 CARB Resolution No. 11-22 (July 21, 2011). 

Accordingly, we propose to approve the RFP and attainment 

contingency measures in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP under CAA 

sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), based in part on CARB’s 

commitment to submit by 2020 additional contingency measures 

meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 

 

36 These contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that 

an appropriate level of emissions reduction progress continues 

to be made if attainment is not achieved and additional planning 

by the State is needed. See General Preamble at 13524.
88

182(e)(5). Following the State’s submittal of these additional 

contingency measures, EPA will approve or disapprove the 

provisions in accordance with CAA section 110.

G. Advanced Control Technology and Clean Fuels for Boilers

1. Requirements for Advanced Technology and Clean Fuels for 

Boilers

CAA section 182(e)(3) provides that SIPs for extreme areas 

must require each new, modified, and existing electric utility 

and industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy 

of NOx to either burn as its primary fuel natural gas, methanol, 

or ethanol (or a comparably low polluting fuel), or use advanced 

control technology (such as catalytic control technology or 

other comparably effective control methods). These provisions 

are due three years after designation and the control 

requirements must be in place eight years after designation. 

Further guidance on this requirement is provided in the General 

Preamble at 13523. According to the General Preamble, a boiler 

should generally be considered as any combustion equipment used 

to produce steam and generally does not include a process heater 

that transfers heat from combustion gases to process streams. 

General Preamble at 13523. In addition, boilers with rated heat 

inputs less than 15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which are oil 

or gas fired may generally be considered de minimis and exempt 
89

from these requirements since it is unlikely that they will 

exceed the 25 tpy NOx emission limit. General Preamble at 13524.

2. Provisions for Controls on Boilers in the SJV District Rules

The 2007 Ozone Plan, which addresses the CAA section 

182(e)(3) requirements on page 2-9, states that District Rules 

4305, 4306, and 4352 address NOx from affected boilers and that 

these rules meet the requirements of the CAA. Since submittal of 

the 2007 Ozone Plan, Rule 4305 has been superseded by Rule 4306.

Rule 4306 ―Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters –

Phase 3‖ as revised on September 18, 2003, applies to any 

gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, or 

process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 5 

million Btu per hour. The emission limits in the rule (5 ppm to 

30 ppm for gaseous fuels and 40 ppm for liquid fuels) cannot be 

achieved without the use of advanced control technologies. See 

―Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOx Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,‖ Emissions 

Standards Division, EPA, March 1994; see also 74 FR 33933 at 

33945 (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420 at 10434 (March 8, 2010) 

(proposed and final rules approving 1-hour ozone plan for SJV). 

All units subject to Rule 4306 were required to comply with the 

limits in the rule no later than December 1, 2008. See Rule 

4306, section 7.0. We approved Rule 4306 as a SIP revision on 

May 18, 2004 at 69 FR 28061.
90

Rule 4352 ―Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators And 

Process Heaters‖ as revised May 18, 2006, applies to any boiler, 

steam generator or process heater fired on solid fuel at a 

source that has a potential to emit more than 10 tons per year 

of NOx or VOC. All units subject to Rule 4352 were required to 

comply with the Rule’s limits no later than January 1, 2007. 

Rule 4352, section 7.0. We approved Rule 4352 into the 

California SIP on October 1, 2010. In that action, we determined 

that all of the NOx emission limits in Rule 4352 effectively 

require operation of Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) 

control systems, which are comparably effective to SCR for the 

affected sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NOx emission 

reductions comparable to combustion of clean fuels at these 

types of boilers. We therefore concluded that Rule 4352 

satisfies the requirements of section 182(e)(3) for solid fuelfired boilers in the SJV. See TSD, section II.I.; see also 74 FR 

33933 at 33945 and 75 FR 10420 at 10434.

New and modified boilers that will emit or have the 

potential to emit 25 tpy or more of NOx are subject to the 

District’s new source permitting rule, Rule 2201 ―New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review.‖ This rule requires new and 

modified source to install and operate best available control 

technology/lowest achievable emissions reductions technology. 
91

EPA approved Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 

2010).

3. Proposed Finding on the Advanced Technology and Clean Fuels 

for Boilers

Based on our review of the emission limitations in 

SJVAPCD’s rules, we propose to find that the SJV area meets the 

clean fuel/clean technology for boilers requirement in CAA 

section 182(e)(3).

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation 

Conformity

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 that involve 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 
92

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 establish 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. Ozone attainment 

and RFP plans should establish budgets for NOx and VOC. See 40 

CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i).

Before an MPO may use budgets in a submitted SIP, EPA must 

first determine that the budgets are adequate or approve the 

budgets. In order for us to find the budgets adequate and 

approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and be approvable under all 

pertinent SIP requirements. To meet these 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).
93

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

SIP

The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 2007 included budgets for 

VOC and NOx for the attainment year of 2023 and the RFP years of 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Section 

9.2.3 and Appendix C and CARB Staff Report, Appendix D (updating 

MVEB for Madera and San Joaquin Counties). On January 8, 2009, 

we notified CARB that we found the budgets in the 2007 Ozone

Plan for the RFP milestone years 2011, 2014, and 2017 adequate 

and the MVEB for the RFP milestone years 2008 and 2020 and the 

attainment year of 2023 inadequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. See letter Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James 

Goldstene, CARB, ―RE: Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8-

Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Plan Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets,‖ January 8, 2009. We published a 

notice of our findings at 74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009).

CARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley and 

their documentation in Appendices A and C, respectively, of the 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. The updated MVEB are for NOx and VOC 

for the RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017 and 2020 the attainment 

year of 2023 and are intended to replace the budgets for these 

years that were submitted in 2007. No budgets were included for 

the RFP year of 2008 because it is no longer applicable as a 

conformity analysis year. Additional information associated with 
94

the motor vehicle emission budget calculations were provided in 

an email from, Douglas Ito, CARB to Elizabeth Adams, EPA Region 

9, ‖Additional Clarifying Information,‖ August 11, 2011.

3. Proposed Action on the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

As part of its review of the budgets’ approvability, EPA 

has evaluated the revised budgets using our adequacy criteria in 

40 CFR 93.318(e)(4). As documented in Table K-3 in the TSD, we 

found that they meet each adequacy criterion. We have completed 

our detailed review of the 2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone SIP and 

supplemental submittals including the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

and are proposing to approve the SIP’s attainment and RFP 

demonstrations. We have also reviewed the proposed MVEB 

submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision and have found that 

they are consistent with the attainment and RFP demonstrations 

and were based on control measures that have already been 

adopted and implemented. Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 MVEB as shown in Table 13. 

EPA is not required under its Transportation Conformity 

rules to find budgets adequate prior to proposing approval of 

them. However, we will complete the adequacy review of these 

budgets either prior to or concurrently with our final action on 

SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP. We will also post the revised budgets 

on EPA’s adequacy review web page.
95

As stated in section IV.E., if we were to finalize a 

disapproval with respect to the plan's section 182(d)(1)(A) 

element, then the area would be eligible for a protective 

finding under the transportation conformity rule because the 

submitted SIP contains adopted control measures and enforceable 

commitments that fully satisfy the emissions reductions 

requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment. 40 

CFR 93.120(a)(3).
96

Table 13

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP 

as Revised on July 21, 2011

(tons per summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

County ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

Fresno 14.3 36.2 10.7 30.0 9.3 22.6 8.3 17.7 8.0 13.5

Kern (SJV) 12.7 50.3 9.7 42.7 8.7 31.7 8.2 25.1 7.9 18.6

Kings 2.8 10.7 2.1 8.9 1.8 6.7 1.7 5.3 1.6 4.0

Madera 3.4 9.3 2.5 7.7 2.2 5.8 2.0 4.7 1.9 3.6

Merced 5.1 19.9 3.7 16.7 3.2 12.4 2.9 9.9 2.8 7.4

San 

Joaquin 11.1 24.6 8.4 20.5 7.2 15.6 6.4 12.4 6.3 10.0

Stanislaus 8.5 16.9 6.4 13.9 5.6 10.6 5.0 8.4 4.7 6.4

Tulare 8.8 16.0 6.7 13.2 5.8 10.1 5.3 8.1 4.9 6.2
97

I. Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas

In addition to the requirements discussed above, title 1, 

subpart D of the CAA includes other provisions applicable to 

extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin 

Valley. We describe these provisions and their current status 

below for information purposes only.

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as serious or 

above to implement an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program in those areas. The requirements for 

those programs are provided in section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR part 

51, subpart S.

On July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38023), EPA approved California’s 

inspection and maintenance program in the San Joaquin Valley as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA and applicable EPA 

regulations for enhanced I/M programs.

2. Reformulated Gasoline Program

As an extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, the San Joaquin Valley was covered under the federal 

reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. See CAA section 

211(k)(10)(D). As an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, SJV 

continues to be covered under the federal RFG program. See 40 
98

CFR 80.70(m)(1)(i) and 70 FR 71685. California has its own RFG 

program (California Phase III RFG (CaRFG3)), which also applies 

in the SJV. EPA approved CaRFG3 program into the California SIP 

on May 12, 2010. See 75 FR 26633.

3. New Source Review Rules

CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop SIP 

revisions containing permit programs for each of its ozone 

nonattainment areas. The SIP revisions are to include 

requirements for permits in accordance with CAA 172(c)(5) and 

173 for the construction and operation of each new or modified 

major stationary source (with respect to ozone) anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. See also CAA sections 182(e). EPA’s 

implementation regulations for nonattainment new source review 

(NSR) programs are in 40 CFR 51.165, and guidance specific to 

ozone nonattainment areas is provided in the preamble to the 8-

hour ozone implementation rule, 70 FR 71612 at 71671-71684.

EPA approved the SJV District’s new source review rules, Rules 

2201 ―New and Modified Stationary Source Review‖ and Rule 2020 

―Exemptions,‖ into the SJV portion of the California SIP based 

in part on a conclusion that they adequately addressed the NSR 

requirements specific to extreme areas. See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 

2010). 

4. Clean-Fuel Vehicle Program
99

CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 require California to 

submit for EPA approval a SIP revision that includes measures to 

implement the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. Section 182(c)(4)(B) of 

the Act allows states to opt-out of the clean-fuel vehicle fleet 

program by submitting a SIP revision consisting of a program or 

programs that will result in at least equivalent long term 

reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air emissions.

In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to opt-out of the 

federal clean fuel fleet program and demonstrating that is lowemissions vehicle program achieved emission reductions at least 

as large as the federal program would. EPA approved the State’s 

opt-out on August 27, 1999. See 64 FR 46849.

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery

CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that States submit a revised 

SIP by November 15, 1992 that requires owners or operators of 

gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline 

vehicle refueling vapor recovery (―Stage II‖) systems in ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above.

California’s ozone nonattainment areas had implemented Stage II 

vapor recovery well before the passage of the CAA Amendments of 

1990. See General Preamble at 13514.

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 
100

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. 

State law also authorizes CARB, in cooperation with districts, 

to certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective 

equipment, and to develop test methods. CARB has adopted 

numerous revisions to its vapor recovery program regulations. 

See Table A-7 in Appendix A to this TSD. See also CARB’s 

website, http://www.evrhome.org/

In the San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation 

of CARB-certified vapor recovery equipment is required and 

enforced by SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest versions of 

which were approved by into the SIP on October 30, 2009. See 74 

FR 56120.

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires that all ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as serious or above implement measures to 

enhance and improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of 

ozone, NOx, and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of 

NOx and VOC. 

The SJVAPCD’s Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan 

(June 30, 2010) describes the steps the state has taken to 

address the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The SJV’s 

Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network

consists of six sites operated by SJVAPCD centered around Fresno 

and Bakersfield, as described on pages 13 and 17 of the 
101

monitoring network plan.37 EPA has approved the SJVAPCD PAMS 

network. See letter, Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 9 to Scott 

Nester, SJVAPCD, November 1, 2010.

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program

CAA section 185 requires that the SIP for each severe and 

extreme ozone nonattainment area provide that, if the area fails 

to attain by its applicable attainment date, each major 

stationary source of VOC and NOx located in the area shall pay a 

fee to the State as a penalty for such failure for each calendar 

year beginning after the attainment date, until the area is 

redesignated as an attainment area for ozone. States are not yet 

required to implement CAA section 185 fee programs for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard.

38

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to

approve California’s submitted SIP for attaining the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone standard in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area. In 

the alternative, EPA is proposing to disapprove the submitted 

SIP with respect to certain requirements for transportation 

 

37 Starting in 2007, EPA’s monitoring rules (see 71 FR 61236), 

October 17, 2006) required the submittal and EPA action on 

annual monitoring network plans. 

38 SJVUAPCD submitted Rule 3170, ―Federally Mandated Ozone 

Nonattainment Fee,‖ and a fee-equivalent program to address the 

requirements of CAA section 185 for the 1-hour ozone standard. 

EPA recently proposed to approve these programs as a revision to 

the SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 45212 

(July 28, 2011).
102

control strategies and measures pending resolution of petitions 

before the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011). The

submitted SIP consists of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 

2008 and 2011) and the SJV-specific portions of CARB’s 2007 

State Strategy (as revised in 2009 and 2011) that address CAA 

and EPA regulations for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS for the SJV. 

Specifically, EPA proposes to approve under CAA section 

110(k)(3) the following elements of the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone

SIP:

1. the revised 2002 base year emissions inventories as 

meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.915;

2. the reasonably available control measures demonstration 

as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.912(d);

3. the reasonable further progress demonstration as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) and 

40 CFR 51.910;

4. the attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements 

of CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;

5. the provisions for the development of new technologies 

pursuant to CAA section 182(e)(5) and CARB’s commitment to adopt 
103

and submit by 2020 contingency measures to be implemented if the 

new technologies do not achieve the planned emissions 

reductions, in addition to additional attainment contingency 

measures meeting the requirements of CAA 172(c)(9), pursuant to

CAA section 182(e)(5) and CARB’s commitment to develop and 

submit by 2020 revisions to the SIP that will: (1) reflect 

modifications to the 2023 emission reduction target based on 

updated science and (2) identify additional strategies and 

implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 

2023.

6. the contingency measure provisions for failure to make 

RFP and to attain as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9);

7. the demonstration that the SIP provides for 

transportation control strategies and measures sufficient to 

offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number 

of vehicle trips and to provide for RFP and attainment as 

meeting the requirements CAA section 182(d)(1)(A);

8. the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for the RFP 

years of 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 and the attainment year of 

2023 because they are derived from approvable RFP and attainment 

demonstrations and meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) 

and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
104

9. SJVUAPCD's commitments to achieve specific aggregate 

emissions reductions of direct VOC and NOx, as listed in Table 6-

1 of the 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised December 18, 2008); and 

10. CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, 

as listed in Table B-1 on page 1 of Appendix B of the 2011 

Progress Report and in Appendix A-3 of the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, to achieve specific aggregate emissions reductions of 

VOC and NOx by 2023 as provided in CARB Resolution 07-28, 

Attachment B and the 2009 State Strategy Status Report; p. 20;

and to achieve the emissions reductions needed to attain the 8-

hour ozone standard in the SJV as provided in CARB Resolution 

07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State 

Strategy Status Report, p. 13.

Finally, we propose to find that SJVUAPCD has satisfied the 

clean fuel/advanced technology requirement for boilers in CAA 

section 182(e)(3) for the SJV.

In the alternative, if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

9th Circuit denies the Agency’s petition for rehearing in AIR v. 

EPA and issues its mandate before EPA issues a final rule on the 

SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP, we propose to disapprove the SIP 

under CAA section 110(k)(3) with respect to the first element 

(i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) 

based on the plan’s failure to include sufficient transportation 
105

control strategies and measures to offset the emissions from 

growth in VMT.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled 

―Regulatory Planning and Review.‖

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities because proposed SIP 

approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply 

propose to approve requirements that the State is already 
106

imposing. Therefore, because this proposed Federal SIP approval 

does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation 

of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into 

the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act 

forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a) (2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (―Unfunded Mandates Act‖), signed into law on March 22, 

1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 

any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 

million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
107

EPA has determined that this proposed action does not 

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 

Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and 

replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 

13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

―meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.‖ ―Policies that have federalism implications‖ is 

defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 

―substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.‖ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the 
108

funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 

State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and

local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 

federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 

Agency consults with State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed regulation.

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes 

to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to 

this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

EO 13175, entitled ―Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments‖ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

―meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have tribal 
109

implications.‖ This proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in EO 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, EO 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment 

on this proposed rule from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-

501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. 

This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 

because it proposes to approve a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This proposed rule is not subject to EO 13211 ―Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use‖ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
110

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to 

evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use 

―voluntary consensus standards‖ (VCS) if available and 

applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this proposed 

action. Today’s proposed action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 

directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States.
111

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove State 

choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to approve certain State requirements for 

inclusion into the SIP under CAA section 110 and subchapter I, 

part D will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under EO 12898.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen 

dioxide, ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds.

AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

 September 7, 2011 /s/ Jared Blumenfeld

_______________________ ___________________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

EPA Region 9