# Technical Support Document

and Response to Comments

Final Rule

on the

San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan

and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the

2007 State Strategy

Air Division U.S. EPA Region 9
December 15 , 2011

### For further information on this technical support document, please contact:

Frances Wicher Office of Air Planning (AIR

- 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

- Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 972

- 3957 wicher.frances@epa.gov

D ocuments referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for this rulemaking , docket no. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 201 1

- 0589

, which may be found at www.regulations.gov or at the address listed above.

# Table of Contents

i I. Introduction and Background

A. The 1997 8

- hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1

1. The 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 a. Level and Form of the Standard 1 b. Health Effects 2
2. Implementing the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS 2 a. Designations 2 b. California‘s Request for Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley 1997 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 4 c. 1997 8

- hour Ozone Standards Planning Requirements 4
B. Ozone Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley 5
C. California‘s Submittals Constituting the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan 7
D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP Submittals 9
1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals 9
2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals 9

II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

A. Emissions Inventories 12
1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories 12

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 13

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 17 Public Comments Received on the Proposed App roval of the Emissions Inventory 18
B. Air Quality Modeling 20
1. Requirements for Air Quality Modeling 20
2. Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 20 a. Conceptual Description 21 b. Modeling Protocol 22 c. Air Quality Model Selection 23 d. Episode Selection 24 e. Model Domain and Spatial Resolution 25 f. Initial and Boundary Conditions 27 g. Meteorological Model Selection and Setup 28 h. Meteorological Model Performance 30 i. Emission Inventory 32 j. Air Qu ality Model Performance 33 k. Modeled Attainment Test 36

# Table of Contents

ii l. Unmonitored Area Analysis 37 m. Weight of Evidence Determination 39

3. Conclusions 42 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Finding on the Air Quality Modeling 42
C. Reasonably Available Control Mea sures 43
1. Requirements for RACM 43
2. RACM Analysis in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 44 a. District RACM Analysis 44 b. Lo cal Jurisdictions‘ RACM Analysis 45 c. State‘s RACM Analysis 48

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 51 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RACM Demonstration 54
D. Control Strategy 58
1. Requirements for Control Strategies 58
2. Control Strategy in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 59 a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 59 b. CARB Control Strategy Measures and Commitments 70

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 76

a. Baseline Measures 76 i. Section 209 Waiver Measures 77 ii. Non

- waiver measures 80 b. Control Strategy 81
E. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision 83
1. Requirements of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision 83
2. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP
84

3. Evaluation and Conclusion 87 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provision 88

F. Attainment Demonstration 89
1. Requirement for Attainme nt Demonstrations 89

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 89

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 92 a. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstrations 92 b. Attainment Demonstration 96

# Table of Contents

iii Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Attainment Demo nstration
97
G. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 98
1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations 98

2. RFP Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 99

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 99 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RFP Demonstration 99
H. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment 106
1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and TCM to Offset Emissions
Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment 106
2. Transportation Control Strategies and TCM to Offset Emissions Incr eases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 106

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 107 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Provision 108
I. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers 109
1. Requirement for the Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers 109

2. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers Requirements in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan 109

3. Evaluation and Conclusion 110 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the CAA Section 182(e)(3) Provisions 112
J. Contingency Measures 113
1. Requirements for Contingency Measures 113
2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 114

3. Evaluation and Conclusions 114 Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Contingency Measure Provision 115
K. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 117
1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 117
2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP 117
3. January 8, 2009 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding 118

4. Action on the Revised MVEB 119

# Table of Contents

iv Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the MVEB 120
L. Status of Other Clean Air Act Requirements Applicable to Extreme Ozone Nonattainment
Areas 130
1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs 130
2. Reformulated Gasoline Program 130

3. New Source Review Rule 130

4. Clean

- Fuel Vehicle Program 131
5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery 131

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 131
7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program 132

III

- Responses to Comments

List of Comment Letters Received 134

A. Enforceable Commitments 134

B. Baseline Measures, Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration 139
C. Reasonably Available Control Measures 149

D. Pre

- Baseline Emission Reduction Credits 164
E. CAA section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provision 165
F. CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Requirements 171

G. Emissions Reductions from SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 ―Confined Animal Facilities‖ 174
H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 180

Appendix A

– State Measures
A. Complete List of State Measures 1

B. State Rules that Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

### in the San Joaquin Valley 18

C. State Fuel Measures 24

D. State On

- Road Mobile Sources Measures 27

E. State Consumer Product Measures 36
F. State Vapor Recovery Measures 38

G. Other State Measures 40

Appendix B

– SJVUAPCD Rules

# Acronyms

v AB: California Assembly Bill
ACT: Alternative Control Techniques AERR: Air Emissions Report Rule, 40 CFR part 51, subpart A APPB‖ peak bias (modeling term) APPE: peak error (modeling term) ARB: California Air Resources Board (also CARB) APCD: air pollution control district AQIP: Air Qual ity Improvement Program; a n incentive program administered by CARB to fund clean vehicle and equipment projects AQMD: air quality management district BAR: California Bureau of Automotive Repair CAA: Federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions CARB: California Air Resources Board (also ARB)
CCOS : Central California O zone Study CCR: California Code of Regulations CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inventory System
CEID A RS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System CERR: Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule, 40 CFR part 51, su bpart A CFR: Code of Federal Regulations CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality [model] CO: carbon monoxide
CTG : Control Techniques Guideline s DDM: direct decoupled method (modeling term) District: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Agency DPR: California Department of Pesticide Regulation EMFAC: EMmission FACtor mobile source model EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
FBC: fluidized bed combustion
FDDA: four dimensional data assimilation (modeling term)
FHWA: Fede ral Highway Administration Fine particulate: PM 2.5 

### FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program FR: Federal Regist er FRM: Federal Reference Method
FTA: Federal Transit Administration GHG: Greenhouse gases HDDT: Heavy duty diesel truck I/C: internal combustion
ICI: Industrial/Commercial/Institutional IOP: intensive operational periods (modeling term) km: kilometer

m: meter

# Acronyms

vi m 3 

### : cubic meter mb: millibars MCR: mid

- course review MFB: mean fractional bias
MFE : mean fractional error
MM5: a mesoscale model , version 5
MMPR: m eteorological m odel p erformance a nalysis
MNB: mean normalized bias MNGE: unpaired peak ratio
MOZART: Model for Ozone And Related C hemical Tracers MPO: metropolitan planning or ganization MSY: milestone year MVEB: motor vehicle emissions budget NA: not available N/A: not applicable NAAQS: national ambient air quality standard
NB: normalized bias NNSR: nonattainment area new source review
NO 2 

### : nitrogen dioxide
NO
x 

### : oxides of nitrogen NOA: notice of availability (of recommendations for designations) NSR: new source review NYQ: not yet quantified
O 3 

### : ozone OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality
PA: process analysis (modeling term) PAMS: Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
PCA: pri ncipal component analysis
PM 10 

### : particulate matter with a diameter of 10 μm or less, includes PM 2.5 

### PM 2.5 

### : particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less
PBL: Planetary Boundary Layer (modeling term) PSD: p revention of significant deterioration (new source permitting program) RACM: reasonably available control measures RACT: reasonably available control technology
RFP : reasonable further progress ROG: reactive organic gases
RRF: r elative response facto r RTP: regional transportation plan SC: South Coast
SCR: s elective catalytic reduction SIP: state implementation plan SJV: San Joaquin Valley SJVAB: San Joaquin Valley air basin
SJV (U) APCD: San Joaquin Valley (Unified) Air Pollution Control Distric t

# Acronyms

vii SNCR: Selective non

- catalytic reduction
TAP: SJVUAPCD ‘s Technology Advancement Program TCM: transportation control measures tpd: tons per day tpy tons per year TIP: transportation improvement program TSD: technical support document
UAA: unmonitored area analysis (modeling term) UPR: unpaired peak ratio (modeling term) VMT: vehicle miles traveled VOC: volatile organic compounds WOE: weight of evidence

# I. In troduction and BackgroundEPA

- Region 9 Page 1 

# Technical Support Document and Responses to Comments for the Final Rule on the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan and Related Portions

of the Revised 2007 State Strategy

This technical support document (TSD) provides supporting information and analysis for EPA‘s final action on the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District‘s 2007 Ozone Plan ( adopt ed April 30, 2007 , revised December 18, 2008 and July 21 , 2011 ) and the related portions of the California Air Resources Board‘s State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (adopted with amendments on September 27, 2007 and revised and updated on April 2 4 , 2009 , April 28, 2011, and July 21, 2011 )

. EPA proposed this action on September 16, 2011 at 76 FR 57846. This TSD updates the technical support document prepared
in s upport of the proposed action 1 

### and provides a summary of and our response to the comments received on the proposed action.



## A. The 1997 8

- hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

1. The 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

a. Level and Form of the Standard
On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone to replace the then

- current 1

- hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm) with a 8

- hour standard s set at a stricter level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 62
FR 3 8 856. 2

, 3 

### The 8

– hour standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the
three

- year average of the annual fourth

- highest daily maximum 8

– hour average ozone
concentration is l ess than or equal to 0.08 ppm. 4 

### 40 CFR § 50.10(b).

1 ―Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action on the San Joaquin Valley 200 7 Ozone Plan and the San Joaquin Valley Portions of the 2007 State Strategy,‖ Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Septem ber 8, 201 1

, referred to as the ― Proposal TSD‖ in this document and the rule

.

2 EPA promulgated the 1

- hour ozone standards of 0.12 p pm in 1979 at 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
The 1

- hour standards were met when the number of expected days per year on which the level of the standard s was exceeded was less than or equal to 1.0 when averaged over 3 years. We revoked the 1

- hour ozone standards
effecti ve June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR § 50.9(b) and 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).

3 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. The form of the st andards remained unchanged.
See 60 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). References to the 8

- hour ozone standards in this TSD are to the 1997 standards
unless otherwise noted.

4 The number of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding con vention for comparing the computed 3

- year average annual fourth

- highest daily maximum 8

- hour ozone concentration to the level of the standard. The level of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards is expressed to the second decimal place, 0.08 ppm. The third decima l place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 2 

### Ground

- level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO
x 

### ) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight

. These two pollutants, referred to as ozo ne precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including on

road and off

- road motor vehicles and engines (e.g., cars, trucks, construction equipment and locomotives) , power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources (e.g., paints, law n and garden equipment, and open burning)

.
b. Health Effects
Ozone is a significant health concern, particularly for children and people with asthma and other respiratory diseases. Ozone has also been associated with increased hospitalizations and emergen cy room visits for respiratory causes, school absences, and reduced activity and productivity as a consequence of ozone

- related respiratory symptoms.
Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems. Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causi ng coughing, throat irritation, an uncomfortable sensation in the chest, and/or pain when breathing deeply. Ozone can worsen asthma and possibly other respiratory diseases, such as bronchitis and emphysema. When ozone levels are high, more people with
asth ma have attacks that require a doctor‘s attention or the use of additional medication. Ozone can reduce lung function and make it more difficult to breathe deeply, and breathing may become more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person‘s nor mal activity. In addition, breathing ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue, irreversible reductions in lung function, and a lower quality of life if the inflammation occurs repeatedly over a long time period

. Groups who are particularly susceptible to the effects of ozone include children

, adults who are active outdoors, people with respiratory disease ( such as asthma ) , and people with unusual sensitivity to ozone

. 62 FR 33856, 33859

. More detailed information on the health effects of ozone a s well as information on the welfare effects ozone can be found at the following Web site : http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ naaqs/standards/

ozone/s

_ o3

_ index.html.

2. Implementing the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone NAAQS

a. Designations
The process for designating areas as either attainment or nonattainment following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is found in CAA section 107(d). Under this section,
each state g overnor or t ribal leader has an opportunity to recommend t o EPA air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for each area. Under CAA section 107, state and t ribal recommendations are due within one year of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS . EPA then has one to two additional years to promu lgate final designations. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, EPA is required to notify state s or t ribes of any intended modifications to their recommended areas and boundaries. States and t ribes then have an opportunity to provid e a demonstration as to why the modification s indicated by EPA

Thus, a computed 3

– year average 8

- hour ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm. See 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, secti on 2.3.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 3 

### are inappropriate. CAA section 107(d ) (1)(B )(ii). Whether or not a state or t ribe provides a recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems app ropriate.

For the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s , t he Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st 

### Century (TEA

– 21) revised the deadline to promulgate nonattainment designations to provide an additional year (to July 2000) . A dditional Congressional action restricted EPA‘s authority to spend mon ey to designate areas until the earlier of June 2001 or the date of the Supreme Court ruling i n the litigation challenging the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS

. In June 2000, we asked each s tate g overnor and t ribal leader to submit their designation
recommendations (including boundary recommendations) for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards
and any supporting documentation for those recommendations to EPA. Because of the uncertainties due to the ongoing litigation on the 8

- hour ozone standard, we did not notify s tates

a nd t ribes of any intended modifications and did not designate areas at that time. After the legal challenges to the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS were resolved in 2001 , we requested that s tates and

t ribes provide updated recommendations , based on ambient air qua lity data for the years 2000 to
2002 and any additional supporting documen tation b y July 15, 2003.

O n June 15, 2003, California submitted its recommendations, including the recommendation that the SJV air basin be designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard s

. 5 

### On September 8, 2003, EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing the availability of the s tate and t ribal recommendations. See 68 FR 52933.

On December 3, 2003, we notified California via letter of our intent to accep t its
recommendation for designating the San Joaquin Valley air basin as nonattainment. EPA, however, proposed to expand the boun daries of the SJV nonattainment area to include the mountain counties of Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa. 6 

### On Decembe r 10, 2003 , we published a NOA annou ncing the availability of our letters to California and other states that described our intended modifications to their recommendations. See 68 FR 68805. In our letters, we asked s tates to submit

, by no later than Februa ry 6, 2004

, a demonstration as to why our modifications were not appropriate.
On February 4, 2004, California responded to our proposed modification to its recommendations on boundaries for the SJV nonattainment area, requesting that we exclude the
four mo untain counties from the SJV nonattainment area. On April 15, 2004, we designated the SJV air basin, excluding the four mountain counties, as nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard s and classified the area as ―serious‖ under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.903(a), Table 1. 7 

### See 69 FR 23858

, 23888

- 89 (April 30, 2004). The designation, which became effective on June 15, 2004, is codified at 40 CFR § 81.305

. The d esignation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop a n implementation plan that includes, among other things, a demonstration showing how the area

5 See Letter, Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9, June 15, 2003.

6 See Letter, Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, December 3, 2003.

7 See Letter, Michael O. Leavitt, Administrator, EPA, to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, April 15, 2004.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 4 

### will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the attainment dates prescribed in the CAA. Under CAA section 182 for ozone nonattainment areas and EPA‘s regulations implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS ( See 40 CFR part 51 , subpa rt X), states had until June 15, 2007

– three years after final designations to nonattainment

– to submit to EPA their SIPs demonstrating RFP and attainment. 8 

### 40 CFR § 51.9 10(a)(1)(ii)(B) and § 51.908(a).

b. California’s Request for Reclassification of the San Joaquin Valley 1997 8

- hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area

. As part of California‘s submittal for the San Joaquin Valley 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area, the State re q uested that EPA reclassify the area from ―serious‖ to ―extreme‖
nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA. 9



### CAA secti on 181(b)(3) states: ― [t] he Administrator shall grant the request of any State to reclassify a nonattainment area in that State in accordance with Table 1 of subsection (a) of this section to a higher classification. The Administrator shall publish a notice in the Federal Register of any such request and of action by the Administrator granting the request.‖ This provision for voluntary reclassification has been brought forward as part of the transition from the 1

- hour
ozone standard s to the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s

. See 40 CFR § 51.903(b) (―A State may request a higher classification for any reas on in accordance with section 181(b)(3) of the CAA‖)
and 40 CFR § 51.903(a)

, Table 1.
We granted California‘s request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified the San Joaquin Valley to extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s , effective June 4, 201 0. See 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010)

. Because t he SJV 2007 Ozone Plan was developed to address the CAA‘s

extreme area planning requirements

, California was not required to make additional SIP submittals in response to this reclassification. Id. at 24415.

c

. 1 997 8

- hour Ozone Standard s Planning Requirements

In order to assist state s in developing effective plans to address their ozone nonattainment problem, EPA issued a rule for implementing the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . This rule is know n as the ozone implementation rule. We issued this rule in accordance with the statutory requirements of the CAA as set forth in subparts 1 and 2 of Part D of Title 1, i.e. , sections 171

– 179B, 181 and 182.
The rule was p roposed on June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802) and f inaliz ed in two phases. The
Phase 1 rule addresse s classifications for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards; revocation of the 1

- hour ozone standard; anti

- backsliding principles for 1

- hour ozone requirements; attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions n eeded for attainment

. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 10 

### The Phase II rule addresse s , among other things, the requirements for reasonably

8 The SIP submittals for meeting the requirements in CAA section 182(a)(1) for emissions inventories and CAA section 182(b)(2) for the implementation of reasonably available control technologies (RACT) were due 24
and 27 months after the effective date of designation , respectively

. See 40 CFR §§ 51.915 and 51.912(a)(2)

.

9 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 Wayn e Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 1 6, 2007.

10 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 519 60 (August 24, 2010); and 75TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 5 

### available control technology and measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), modeling and attainment demonstrations, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X.

The ozone implementation rule covers most CAA requirements for 1997 8

- hour ozone state implementation plans. EPA has issued other documents that provide additional guidance on
th ese CAA requirements. We will provide references to these documents as appropriate.



## B. Ozone Air Quality in the San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area is located in the southern part of California ‘s Central Valley

. It is home to almost 4 million people and is the nation‘s leading agricultural area. S tretch ing over 250 miles from north to south and averag ing 80 miles wide, it is partia lly enclosed by the Coast Mountain range to the west, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, and the Sierra Nevada range to the east. In total, the SJV ozone nonattainment area

encompass es over 2 3 ,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. The local air
district is the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJV U APCD or District).

Ozone levels in the San Joaquin Valley are the highest along the eastern side of the Valley from just north of Fresno to south of Bakersfield. Since 2000 , the SJV has seen a generally steady decline in ozone levels and days over the standard

. 11 

### See Figure I

- 1 and Table I

1

.

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 A design value is an ambient concentration calculated usin g a specific methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data and is used to determine whether an ar ea‘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.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 6 

### F IGURE 

### I

- 1 

## 8

- Hour Ozone Trends in the San Joaquin Valley from 2000 to 2010

T ABLE 

### I

- 1 

## Days over the 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Standard by County from 2000 to 2010

County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Change

2000

- 2010

San Joaquin 10 13 14 15 7 1 23 6 16 8 4

- 60%

Stanislaus 29 23 40 40 13 17 25 5 30 18 11

- 62%

Merced 66 61 89 92 47 20 30 18 33 15 14

- 79%

Madera 30 37 40 42 7 5 15 5 24 13 19

- 37%

Fresno 118 145 146 138 61 62 74 40 67 54 46

- 61%

Kings 91 43 62 45 25 24 46 26 42 37 41

- 55%

Tulare 120 130 127 132 119 84 104 94 106 83 78

- 35%

Kern 115 123 126 144 133 92 110 91 106 83 69

- 40%

Source: U.S. EPA‘s Air Quality Systems database AMP300 report (August 18, 2011). Exceptional events that have been concurred on by EPA were excluded from the calculations. Only one violation per day per county was included in the calculation s.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 7 

## C. California ’s Submittals Constituting the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone State Implemen tation Plan

F ive submittals or parts of submittals comprise the SIP for attaining the 1997 8

- hour

ozone standard s attainment in the SJV . We will refer to these five submittals or parts of submittals collectively as the SJV 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP :

1. 2007 Ozone Plan

, adopted on April 30, 20 07 by the SJV U APCD and on June 14, 2007 by
CARB , submitted with the adopting resolutions and other supporting documentation by
CARB on November 16, 2007

. Additional technical information supporting the reasonable
further progress demonstrations was submitted on February 1, 2008

. See San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Governing Board Resolution 07

- 04

- 11a : In the Matter of Adopting the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 2007
Ozo ne Plan, April 30, 200 7 ; CARB Resolution No. 07

- 20

, June 14, 200 7 ; 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) . This document will be r eferenced in th is TSD and the Federal Regi ster notice s as the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, or simply the Plan.

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

, as amended and adopted on September 27, 2007 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolution and o ther supporting documentation by CARB on November 16, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007 and letter

, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB

, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007, with
enclosures

. This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice s as the 2007 State Strategy.

3. Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revisions to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy

, adopted on April 24, 2009 by CARB , submitted with the adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on August 12, 2009. 12 

### See CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldsten e, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. This document will be r eferenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice s as the 2009 State Strategy Status Report.

4. Amendment

s to the 2007 Ozone Plan (amending the rulemaking schedule for Measure S

GOV

- 5 Organic Waste Operations) adopted on December 18, 2008 by the SJV U APCD

, submitted with adopting resolution and other supporting documentation by CARB on April 24, 2009

. 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 Only pages 11

- 27 of the 2009 State Strategy Status Report are submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report is for informational purposes only. See Attachment A to the CARB Resolution, No. 09

- 34.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 8 

### 5. 8

- Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins

, adopted by CARB on July 21, 2011 and submitted with adopting resolution and other suppor ting information by CARB on July 29, 2011

. See CARB Resolution No. 11

- 22

, July 21, 2011 and l etter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notice s as the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

. 13



### Future referen ces to the 2007 State Strategy a nd the 2007 Ozone Plan in this TSD and the Federal Register notice will be to the Strategy as revised in 2009 and 2011 and the Plan as revised in 2008 and 2011 unless explicitly noted otherwise.
Finally

, both the District and CARB have provided additional information on the SJV
2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP. This additional information i ncludes:

1. CARB, ARB Staff Report to the Air Resources Board: Accelerating San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Progress , November 6, 2007

. 2. SJV U APCD, 2010 Ozone Mid

- Course Review , May 2011 (SJV Ozone MCR).

3. CARB , Progress Report on Implementation of PM 2.5 

### State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coa st and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions

, April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress Report)

. 4. Em ail, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, August 9, 2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

5. Letter, Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, August 10, 2011. (2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement).

6. E m ail , Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA

– Region 9, August 11, 2011 (providing additional information on the transportation conformity budgets).

7. Letter, James Goldsten e, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 29, 2011 (providing information on CAA section 182(e)(5) requirements).

8. Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 18, 2011 (providing information on CAA section 182(e)(5) contingency measures).

13 Only Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisio ns is submitted as a SIP revision. See July 29, 2011
Goldstene letter.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 9 

## D. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for and Completeness of SIP Submittal s

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submi ttals

CAA sections 110(a) and (l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. T o meet this requirement

, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notic e was given and a public hearing was held consistent with EPA‘s implementing regulations in 40 CFR § 51.102.

Both the SJV U APCD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 200 7 Ozone Plan

. T he District conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 200 7

. See SJ VUAPCD Governing Board Resolution

, 07

- 04

- 11a, April 30, 2007

, page 3

. CARB also provide the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its June 14 , 200 7 public hearing on the Plan

. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of the S an Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan,‖ May 15, 2007

. The District also provided the required public notice and hearing on the 20 08 revision to the Plan

. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board
Resolution No. 08

- 12

- 18 , December 18, 2008, p. 2

. CARB also conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public hearing prior to its adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007

. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider Approval of the Proposed State Strategy for California‘s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8

- Hour Ozone and PM 2.5 

### Standards, May 7, 2007 and CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, September 27, 2007

. CARB also provide d the required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hear ing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of revisions to the Strategy and its July 21, 2011 adoption of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

. See CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implement ation Plan and Consider Approval of a Proposed Revision to the State Implementation Plan Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy, March 24, 2009 ; CARB Resolution No. 09

- 34, April 24, 2009 ; CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 State Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of Proposed Revision s for the 8

- Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 

### SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2011; and CARB
Resolut ion No. 11

- 22, July 21, 2011.

Each of the f

ive SIP submittals that comprise the SJV 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP include s proof of publication for notices of public hearings as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed.

2

. Completeness Determination s on SIP Submittals

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt

. This section also provides that any plan that we have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete six months after the day of submittal by operation of law

. A completeness review allows us to determine if the submittal includes all the necessary items and information we need to act on it.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 10 

### We make completeness determinations using criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V

. These criteria fall into two categories: administrative information and technical support
information

. The administrative information provides documentation that the state has followed basic administrative procedures during the SIP

- adoption process and thus we have a legally

adopted SIP revision in front of us

. The technical support information provides us the information we need to determine the impact of the proposed revision on attainment and maintenance of the air quality st andards.
We notify a state of our completeness determination by letter unless the submittal bec a me complete by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvab le

. It does start the 12

- month clock we have to act on the SIP submittal

. See CAA section 110(k)(2).

The November 16, 2007 submittal of the 200 7 Ozone Plan and the April 24 , 2009 submittal of amendments to that Plan went complete by operation of law on May 16, 2009 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 went complete by operation of law on May 16, 2008 and February 12, 2010, respec tively.

We found the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions complete on August 23, 2011

. See letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, CARB, August 23, 2011

.

# II. Evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIPTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 12 

## A. Emission s I nventor ies

1. Requirements for Emissions I nvento ries

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each state with an ozone nonattainment area classified as marginal or above 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. To implement this section

, the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule requires a state to submit a n emissions inventor y meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1 ) for each of its subpart 2 8

- hour ozone nonattainment
areas b y June 15, 2006 (for those areas designated nonatt ainment effective June 15, 2004)

. See 40 CFR § 51.915. These inventories should meet the ozone

- relevant data requirements of EPA‘s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, codifi ed at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A). Id

. The inventories should also meet all other applicable EPA guidance.
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

– 00 1 , November 2005 ( ―EI Guidance‖ ). EPA developed th e EI G uidance to complement the CERR and to provide specific guidance on how to develop base year and future year baseline emissions inventories for 8

- hour ozone, PM 2.5 

### , and regional haze
SIPs. 14



### For areas that were initially d esignated 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. 15



### Emissions inventories for ozone should include emissions of VOC, NO
x 

### , and carbon monoxide (CO) and represent an average summer week day during the ozone season . EI Guidance , p p . 14 and 17 . S tate s 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, state s 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

. For California, the
latest emissions model is the most recently EPA

- approved version of EMFAC , E MFAC2007.
See 68 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).

The emissions invento ry required under the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule is a SIP provision that must be approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k) and is subject to the public hearing requirements of section s 110(a)(2) and (l)

. For areas classified under subpart 2, the emissions inventory submittal i s due one year before the attainment and/or RFP Plan. Applicable EPA policy allows a state to defer the public hearing on its inven tory until the time it ado pts its attainment and/or RFP plan. 70 FR at 71664 and memorandum

, John Cal ca g ni and William

14 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.

15 See also, Memorandum

, Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis to Regional Air Division Directors

, ― 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8

- hr Ozone, PM 2.5 and Regional Haze Programs ,‖ November 18, 2002

. This document is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg /meta.442.1.2002baseinv.pdf and the docket for this rule.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 13 

### La x ton, OAQPS

- EPA

, ―P ublic Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base

- Year Emissions Inventories for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,‖ September 29, 1992

. In addition to the base year inventory, states must also develop specific baseline inventories as part of the reasonable further progress demonstration required by CAA section s 182(b)( 1 ) and 182 (c) (2)(B). The requirements for RF P baseline inventories will be discussed in section II.G. of this TSD

.

2. Emissions Inventories in the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

Note : We discuss the CARB‘s statewide inventory to provide background to our evaluation of
the emissions invento ries in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. We are not tak ing any SIP action on the statewide inventory here, only on the SJV inventor y

. CARB submitted statewide inventories for the ozone precursors , NO
x 

### and VOC

, 16 

### as part of the 2007 State Strategy. See Appendix A for the emissions invento ry output tables and Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory. Summer planning i nventories are provided for the base year of 2002 and baseline years of 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023. 17 

### These statewide emissions inventories are assembled and maintained by CARB in the California Emissions I nvento ry Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) and the California Emission Forecasting and Planning Inventory System (CEFS) databases. Both systems are described in Appendix F. In 2004, CARB submitted the 2002 base year inventory including all necessary data elements t o EPA as required by the
CERR.
The inventories in Appendix A are summer season planning inventories on which the
2007 State Str ategy is based. Inventories for future years (also know n as baseline inventories) incorporate reductions from control measures adopted prior to December 2006 and are projected from the 2002 base year inventory. 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. Specif ic adjustments for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 time period, as well as adjustments to among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 and pesticide emissions, are described in the introductory section to Appendix A and can also be found in Appendix B to the SJV 2007 Ozone
SIP

. The base year and future baseline planning inventories for NO
x 

### and VOC for the SJV

ozone nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in Appendix B of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

. Summer a verage day (May through October) are provided for the base year 200 2 and 2005 (which was included for control measure development), and the RFP year s of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. Inventories are also provided for 2012 (the attai nment year for serious areas, SJV initial classification) 2018 (the attainment date for severe areas), and 2023 (the attainment year for extreme areas, SJV‘s current classification). On

- road motor vehicle emissions are estimated using EMFAC2007

. 2007 Ozone

16 CARB uses the term ROG (reactive organic gases) where we use the term VOC. These terms a re essentially synonymous.

17 The 2007 State Strategy addr esses both 8

- hour ozone standard s and the PM 2.5 standards; therefore, baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for 8

- hour ozone plans but also ones of importance
for PM 2.5 pl ans (e.g., 2009)

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 14 

### Plan, p. B

- 1

. The inventories in 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix B are consistent with the inventories in the 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A.
All inventories include emissions from point, area, on

- road, and non

- road sources

. None of the inventories cited above specifically show s emissions of CO or emissions from non

anthropogenic sources (that is, biogenic or natural sources) although inventories developed for input into the air quality modeling do include CO emissions and non

- anthropogenic s ources. See informa tion at http://www.arb.ca.gov/eos/SIP_Modeling/

. A summary of the 2002 base year , 2005, and the baseline inventories for the years 2005,
200 8 , 201 1, 2014 , 2017, 2020, and 2023 from the 200 7 Ozone Plan as submitted in November
2007 is provided in Table A

- 1 below.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 15 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Emissions I nvento ry Summary for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

Incorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2007 (tons per summer day)

200 2 200 5 20 08 201 1 20 14 20 17 20 20 20 23

Volatile Organic Compounds

Stationary Sources 87.6 79.8 81.5 82.8 84.3 85.8 87.3 89.4

Area Sources 141.8 140.5 143.9 148.4 154.4 160.5 166.6 173.0

On

- Road Mobile Sources 113.9 101.7 85.2 73.1 61.1 52.1 45.7 41.9

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 76.3 76.6 70.9 66.2 61.9 59.4 58.4 58.8

Adjustments 1 54.3 60.2 2 49.1 40.1 45.6 46.1 47.4 48.9

Total 473.9 458.8 430.6 410.7 407.3 403.8 405.5 411.9

Nitrogen Oxides

Stationary Sources 119.8 114.5 108.0 108.9 109.9 110.6 110.8 109.9

Area Sources 11.5 11.3 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.9

On

- Road Mobile Sources 323.5 336.5 328.4 276.4 219.8 173.3 140.1 120.1

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 183.5 167.6 150.2 134.9 117.5 102.2 90.0 81.1

Adjustments 1 4.0 8.4 2

- 32.0

- 36.4

- 38.7

- 35.9

- 30.2

- 27.1

Total 642.3 638.3 565.7 494.9 419.5 361.2 321.7 294.9

Source: SJV 200 7 Ozone Plan, Appendi x B, Tables B

- 3 and B

- 4

. 1 Adjustments are the sum of District and CARB adjustments from Tables B

- 1 and B

- 2 in Appendix B to the 2007 Ozone Plan

. 2 CARB did not provide adjustments for 2005, value represents District adjustments only.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 16 

### Additional Revisions to the Plan’s Base Year and Projected Base line Inventories
As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB submitted revised base year and future

year baseline inventories. These revisions were the result of several factors includ ing revised inventory methodologies, better activity and usage data, t he reductions from measures adopted since 2007, and changes to economic forecasts for certain source categories in 2008 and later

years.

CARB made technical changes to the inventory for diesel trucks and buses as part of its
December 2010 rulemaking amending its In

- Use On

- Road Truck and Bus Rule . The se include d updates and revisions to:

regional allocation factors

o ut

- of

- state vehicle miles traveled estimates new vehicle inventory categories lifetime mileage assumptions

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pr o posed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor

Trailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation , October 2010, p. 17.

CARB also comprehensive ly updated and revised the inventor y for certain categories of
off

- road equipment as part its December 2010 rulemaking amending the In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment Rule. These included updates and revisions to:

equipment population
hours of use
load factors future equipment sales and activity

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel

- Fueled Fleets and the Off

- Road Large Spark

- Ignition Fleet Requirements, October 2010, p p . 1 6

- 1 7.

SJVUAPCD has also made revisions to the base year and baseline inventories since
submittal of the 200 7 Ozone Plan . These revisions includ e developing a new methodology for estimating N O
x 

### emissions from industrial equipment for which natural gas consumption or
emis sions are no t reported for individual sources. The initial emissions estimates for these ―unspecified‖ manufacturing and industrial natural gas consumption sources in the 2007 Ozone
Plan c a me from an estimate developed in the early 1990s

. After reviewing t his emissions estimates for this category and being unable substantiate them , the District developed a new methodology for estimating emissions in this category . The revis ed methodology substantially
reduced the estimate of NO
x 

### emissions from this category

. See Table A

- 2 below. See also
SJVUAPCD , ―2007 Area Sources Emissions Inventory Methodology, 0 50

- Industrial Natural Gas Combustion,‖ June 13, 2006

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 17 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Emissions Inventory Revisions for Unspecified Manufacturing and Industrial Natural Gas Combustion (tons per summer day)

2006 2012 2017 2020 2023

Emissions estimate in 2007 Ozone
Plan 32.5 35.5 38.4 39.8 40.3

Revised estimate 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4

Change 31.3 34.3 37.0 38.4 38.8

Source: CARB, ―ARB Staff Report to the Air Resources Board: Accelerating San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Progress,‖ November 6, 2007, p. 6.



### The District also made revisions to the methodology for estimating emissions from agricultural burning of prunings and field crops and weed abatement. See SJVUAPCD , ―2007 Area Sources Emissions Inventory Methodology, 670

- Agricultural Burning,‖ June 9, 2008. Many of these inventory improvements were made in the period between adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the initial draft of the 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan. See Draft 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan, Appendix B, December 2007.
Collectively, t hese revisions reduce the total 2002 base year NO
x 

### and VOC inventory by approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions , p. B

- 9. See also Table A

- 3 below.

From late 2007 until mid

- 2009 , California experienced a n economic recession that significantly reduced a ctivity levels in and associated emissions from the State‘s construction and goods movement sectors

. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. CARB estimates
economic growth rates will return to normal levels by the 2017

- 2018 time period. Id. 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 Strateg y as submitted in November 2007.

Recession

- caused decreases in emissions do not affect either the Plan‘s modeling validation y ear s ( 1999/ 2000 ), base year (200 2 ) , or future year (2020 and 2023) inventories and thus do not change the carrying capacity estima tes in the Plan (that is, they do not in themselves
affect the target level of overall emissions needed to demonstrate attainment) or the starting point for the reasonable further progress demonstration. Their principal effect is to reduce the
reductions n eeded from the SIP‘s control strategy to demonstrate RFP in the years prior to 2018.

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

The emissions inventories were made available to the public for comment at the same time as the draft 2007 Ozone Plan and draft 2007 Statewide Strategy and were subject to public hearing as part of final version of the Plan and Strategy. See SJVUAPCD Gov er ning Board Resolution, 07

- 04

- 11a, April 30, 2007

, p. 3 and CARB Resolution No. 07

- 28, p. 3. Revisions to the inventory were also made available to the public for comment prior to adoptio n. See CA RB,TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 18 

### ― N otice of Public Meeting to Hear a Report on Staff ‘s Rev iew of Additional Local Emission Controls in The San Joaquin Valley,‖ November 2, 2007 ; SJVUAPCD, Draft 2008 PM 2.5 

### Pl an, Notice of Public Workshops; CARB, Notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Status Report on the State Strategy for California‘s 2007 Stat e Implementation Plan and Consider Approval of Proposed Revision s for the 8

- Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM 2.5 

### SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2 011

. Consistent with the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, the SIP uses a 2002 base year inventory. When considered together with the inventory documentation cited above , it contains all the elements required by EPA‘s emissions inventory guidance. The on

- road mobile source inventories use the latest EPA

- approved version of the State‘s mobile source emissions model,
EMFAC2007.

Based on our evaluation of the inventories and the recent changes to them, we approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory in the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 Ozone Plan as revised by the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions because it provides for a comprehensive, accurate, current, inventory of actual emissions from all so urces of the relevant pollutant at the time of
their submittal as required by CAA section 182(a)(1). We also find that the future year baseline inventories in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP provide an adequate basis for the SIP ‘s reasonably available control measure demonstration and the adjusted base year inventory in the RFP demonstration.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Emissions Inventory

We received a comment that our proposed approval of the projected baseline emissions inventor ies violated CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) because they included reductions
from non

- SIP approved mobile source measures and because we had allegedly failed to find that
the reductions from these non

- SIP approved measures had occurred , were enforceable, and were otherwise consistent with CAA requirements. We have reviewed th ese comment s and respectfully disagree. Our full r esponse s can be found in section III. A.2. of this TSD.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 19 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 3 

## Revised Emis sions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area Incorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2011 (tons per summer day)

2002 200 8 20 11 201 4 201 7 20 20 202 3

Volatile Organic Compounds

Stationary & Area Sources 276 263 226 223 229 235 244

On

- Road Mobile Sources 110 78 66 50 43 39 37

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 71 67 62 59 57 57 57

Total 457 408 354 331 329 331 339

Nitrogen Oxides

Stationary & Area Sources 101 76 68 57 55 53 53

On

- Road Mobile Sources 312 229 183 153 115 91 69

Off

- Road Mobile Sources 152 120 108 98 89 80 73

Total 565 425 359 308 259 224 195

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendi x B, p. B

- 3

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 20 

## B. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requireme nts for Air Quality Modeling

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 th e applicable attainment date. The attainment
demonstration must be based on photochemical grid modeling or another analytical method determined by the EPA Administrator to be at least as effective. Under the ozone implementation rule (40 CFR § 51.908 ; See 70 FR 71612 at 71624 ), the attainment demonstration is due within three years of the area‘s designation as nonattainment and should include technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing violations of the 8

- hour ozone stand ard within the nonattainment area

. Air quality modeling is used to establish emissions attainment targets, the combination of
emissions of ozone precursors that the area can accommodate without exceeding the NAAQS, and to assess whether the proposed control strategy will result in attainment of the NAAQS. Air quality modeling is performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data 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, and to show that the emissions
reduction s are sufficient for attainment of the standard

. The procedures for modeling ozone as part of an attainment SIP are contained in EPA ‘s ― Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Q uality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 

### , and Regional
Haze .‖ EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007 18 

### (―Guidance‖)

.
2. Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) comprises a field study data collection a n d processing, air quality modeling, a nd the continuing data analysis of ozone formation in the San Joaquin Valley and neighboring areas. CCOS is a multi

- million dollar cooperative effort involving California cities, State and local and air pollution control agencies, federal agencies,
industr y groups, academics, and contractors. Meteorological and air quality f ield study data for CCOS were collected during the 4 months from June through October 2000 and included five several

- day intensive monitoring periods

. The CCOS ozone episode selected for modeling was July 31

- August 2, 2000. CARB also modeled July 9

- 13, 1999

, using routinely available meteorological and air quality data. CARB modeled these with the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), with meteorological fields from the Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5)

. The 2007 Ozone Plan‘s a ir quality modeling is discussed in the Executive Summary (p.ES

- 8) and Chapter 3 ―What is Needed to Demonstrate Attainment?‖ with detailed descriptions
and results in A ppendix F ―Photochemical Modeling Support Documents

. ‖ An additional Plan

18 A vailable at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final

- 03

- pm

- rh

- guidance.pdf )

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 21 

### component is the CARB Staff Report

, 19 

### which includes A ppendix C, a Modeling Protocol

. 20 

### Finally, CARB provided an Unmonitored Area Analysis in a separate document. 21



### a. Conceptual Descr iption
A ―conceptual description‖ is a qualitative way of characterizing the nature of an area‘s nonattainment or regional haze proble m. It can be helpful in identifying potential stakeholders and for developing a modeling protocol; it could influence the c hoice of air quality model, modeling domain, grid cell size, priorities for quality assuring and refining emissions estimates, and the choice of initial diagnostic tests to identify potentially effective control strategies. In general, a conceptual descr iption is useful for helping a s tate or t ribe identify priorities and allocate resources in performing a modeled demonstration.

The G uidance (pp. 126

- 128 ( pdf. 135

- 137 ) ) lists examples of key components of such a description: local vs. regional nonattain ment problem; vertical and horizontal extent of high concentrations; characteristic spatial patterns; monitored violations at locations subject to mesoscale wind patterns ( e.g. , at a coastline) differing from the general wind flow; recent changes in precursor emissions in or near the nonattainment area; trends in design values or other air quality indicators that have accompanied emissions changes; spatial pattern to the trends; past modeling results; distinctive meteorological measurements coinciding with exceedances

. 2007 Ozone Plan‘s conceptual description has components in several places, including Chapter 3 (pp. 3

- 1

– 3

- 4 (pdf. 3

- 6 )) , with similar material in the Staff Report p. 1 (pdf. 13 ) and in greater detail in section 1.3 of the Modeling Prot ocol (pp. 6

- 8 (pdf. 12

- 14 ) ). These Plan portions note phenomena conducive to high ozone concentrations in the San Joaquin Valley

. These include the Sierra Nevada, Tehachapi, and Coast mountain ranges that surround the SJV except toward the north, and which restrict air flow and ventilation. The summers are hot with little rain fall or cloud cover ( Fresno

, in the southern SJV, averages 36 days per year with temperatures 100°F or hotter ), and with frequent inversions th at trap pollutants below them. Sea breez es (or ―marine flows‖) may bring pollutants from coastal areas into the SJV from the northwest. Recirculation of SJV pollutants can occur via nighttime drainage winds (―slope flows‖), which return pollutants that were transported up into mo untain valleys d uring the day. Recirculation can also occur via the ―Fresno eddy‖, a counterclockwise flow that returns polluted air that would otherwise escape thr ough southern mountain passes. All of these contribute to the buildup of ozone and precursors, due to enhanc ed photochemical formation and to restricted dispersion. Also noted are various flow patterns, including transport between the SJV and both the Sacramento Valley to the north and the San Franci sco Bay Area to the northwest. The Protocol‘s

19 ―Final Draft, Staff Report: Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan‖, State of California Air Resources Board, May 30, 2007

.

20 ―Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing Strategies to Attain the Federal 8

- hour Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central California‖, California Air Resources Board, May 22, 2007, included as Appendix C to the CARB Staff Report

. The Staff Report also has an Appendix B ―Weight

- of

- Evidence Analysis, San Joaquin Valley Air Basin: Ozone‖; however, as discussed in the section below on Weight of Evidence, this is superseded by the Appendix F of the Plan itself.

21 ―Unmonitored Area Analysis for Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley‖, California Air Resources Board, August 12, 2011

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 22 

### descriptions of t he episodes modeled provide additional information on the conditions leading to high ozone.

EPA find s that the conceptual description of the ozone problem in SJV provided in the
Plan form s an adequate basis for the development of the modeling protocol and the analysis work.



## San Joaquin Valley Topography

Source: Plan Chapter 3, Figure 3

- 1, p. 3

- 1 (pdf. 3 )



### b. Modeling Protocol
A modeling protocol should detail and formalize the procedures for conducting all phases of the modeling study, such as describing the background and objectives for the study, creating a schedule and organizational structure for the study, developing the input data, conducti ng model performance evaluations, interpreting modeling results, describing procedures for using the model to demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to attain the NAAQS and/or regional haze goals, and producing documentation to be submitted for EPA Regional Office review and approval. The Guidance ( p. 134 (pdf. 143) ) lists topics to be addressed in the modeling protocol:

1. Overview of Modeling/Analysis Project

a. Management structure b. Technical committees or other communication procedures to be used

c. Participating organizationsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 23



### d. Schedule for completion of attainment demonstration or uniform rate of progress analyses

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

2. Model and Modeling Inputs

a. Rationale for the select ion of air quality, meteorological, and emissions models b. Modeling domain

c. Horizontal and vertical resolution d. Specification of initial and boundary conditions

e. Episode selection
f. Description of meteorological model setup

g. Development of emissions inputs h. Geograp hic area identified for application of the attainment test(s) i. Methods used to quality assure emissions, meteorological, and other model inputs

3. Model Performance Evaluation

a. Describe ambient data base b. List evaluation procedures

c. Identify possible diagnostic t esting that could be used to improve model performance

4. Supplemental Analyses

a. List additional analyses to be completed to corroborate the model attainment test b. Outline plans for conducting a weight of evidence determination, should it be

necessary

5. Procedura l Requirements

a. Identify how modeling and other analyses will be archived and documented b. Identify specific deliverables to EPA Regional Office

2007 Ozone Plan‘s modeling protocol (―Protocol‖) is contained in Appendix C of the of the Staff Report , as noted above.

The P rotocol covers the most important topics recommended in the Guidance, as discussed in the following subsections. EPA find s the protocol is adequate for developing the
attainm e nt demonstration.

c. Air Quality Model Selection

A model should meet several general criteria for it to be a candidate for consideration i n an attainment demonstration. Guidance, p. 136 (pdf. 145 )

. These general criteria are consistent with requirements in 40 CFR § 51.112 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. The Guidance does not recommend a specific model for use in the attainment demonstration. At present, there is no single model which has been extensively tested and shown to be clearly superior than its alternatives. Thus, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix W does not identify a ―preferred model‖ for use in attainment demonstrations of the ozone NAAQS. Based on the language in Appendix W, models used for these purposes should meet requirements for ―alternative models‖.

States/Tr ibes should use a non

- proprietary model, which is a model whose source code is available for free (or for a ―reasonable‖ cost). Furthermore, the user must be able to revise theTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 24 

### code to perform diagnostic analyses and/or to improve the model‘s ability to de scribe observations in a credible manner. The model should meet several additional prerequisites to be used to support an attainment demonstration:

1. revised in response to a scientific peer review ;

2. appropriate for the specific application on a theoretical b asis ;

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

4. shown to have performed well in past oz one or PM modeling applications ( o r if it is the first application, then the State should note why it believes the new model is expected to

per fo rm sufficiently ) ; and

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

2007 Ozone Plan‘s Model selection is discussed in the Protocol ( p. 20 (pdf. 26) ) . CARB considered the SAQM 22 

### , CMAQ 23 

### , and CAMx 24 

### models. The SARMAP mode l was applied in 1994 to the SJV, but its photochemical mechanism and numerical transport schemes were out of date, and costly to update. CMAQ was considered a viable option, though with limited application to California. CAMx was selected because it was f elt to be faster running, it incorporates several probing tools (DDM and PA; see the di scussion of diagnostic evaluation in Air Quality Model Performance subsection below; CMAQ did not include these at that time),
and the initial investigation showed it to have greater flexibility and ease of set up, as well as better performance based on limited testing.
Any of the three candidate models would have been acceptable. CAMx is explicitly mentioned in EPA Guidance (Table 13.1, p. 139 (pdf. 148 ) ), and EPA find s that CAMx is an adequate model for the ozone attainment demonstration.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s chemical mechanism selection was the California S tatewide A ir
P ollution R esearch C enter ( SAPRC) . The Plan‘s Chapter 3 notes that SAPRC is more complete
than some othe r mechanisms such as Carbon Bond IV (CBIV), though it can be slower running

. 2007 Ozone Plan p. 3

- 6 (pdf. 8). T he Protocol noted ( p. 31 (pdf. 37 ) ) that SAPRC was the most

up

- to

- date mechanism available at the time and has often been applied in California.
SAPRC is cited multiple times in EPA Guidance Appendix B summarizing model performance evaluations ( p. 243 (pdf. 242 ) ), and CARB provides several good rationales for using it. EPA find s it is an adequate chemical mechanism for use in the attainment demonstration modeling.

d. Episode Selection
The Guidance discusses several criteria for selecting time periods to model ( p. 140

- 147 (pdf. 149

- 156 ) ). Experience has shown that evaluation of ozone response to control strategies

22 SAQM: S ARMAP A ir Q uality M odel, where SARMAP stands for SJV/AUSPEX Regional Modeling Adaptation Project (an emissions inventory and modeling system), and in turn AUSPEX stands for At mospheric Utility Signature Prediction Experiment (a field study).

23 CMAQ: C ommunity M ultiscale A ir Q uality Modeling System, developed by EPA

.

24 CAMx: C omprehensive A ir Quality M odel with E x tensions, developed by ENVIRON Corporation

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 25 

### should rely on modeling of f ull synoptic cycles, preferably including ramp

- up and ramp

- down days. It is desirable to include a variety of meteorological conditions (regimes or episode types), concentrations near the area‘s design value, periods with extensive meteorological and air q uality databases, and a sufficient number of days so that the modeled attainment test may be applied over multiple days. Episode types may be identified using q ualitative procedures such as reviewing weather maps and wind patterns , or m ore qu antitative pro cedures, such as
C lassification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis or a principal component analysis (PCA).

2007 Ozone Plan‘s e pisode selection is discussed in Chapter 3 and in the Protocol. The rich meteorological and air quality database developed duri ng the 2000 CCOS field study was a key consideration in selecting episodes to model. CCOS included a network of upper

- air and surface meteorological monitoring stations in addition to the existing routine networks, with yet
additional measurements includin g some from instrumented airplanes made during five intensi ve operational periods (IOPs)

. The chosen July 31

- August 2, 2000 episode c oincided with one of the IOPs. Meteorological and air quality characteristics of this episode are detailed starting at
Prot ocol p. 14 (pdf. 21 ) . The maximum 1

- hour ozone concentration was 151 ppb and occurred on August 2 nd 

### at Edison, southeast of Bakersfield in the southern SJV. The maximum 8

- hour ozone concentration was 106 ppb and occurred on August 2 nd 

### at Parlier, southeast of Fresno in the
south

- central SJV. Depending on the day, from 11 to 19 of a total of 25 SJV monitors exceeded the 8

- hour oz one NAAQS during the episode. Protocol p. 15 ( pdf. 21)

. Based on historical meteorological comparisons, July 1999 was another period especially conducive to ozone formation. Also, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District believed

ozone at the time was representative of their concentrations , so that the modeling could be useful for the Bay Area as well as for the SJV

. The July 11

- 12, 1999 period was also chosen for modeling, even though it had only routine meteorological and air quality data were available for
it

. Chapter 3, p. 3

- 7 ( pdf. 9)

. The maximum 1

- hour ozone concentration in the SJV was 156 ppb
and occu rred on July 8th at Parlier. The maximum 8

- hour ozone concentration in the SJV was 122 ppb and occurred on July 11 th 

### at Clovis, northeast of Fresno in the south

- central SJV. Depending on the day, from 13 to 19 of a total of 20 SJV monitors exceeded the 8

- h our ozone standard during the episode. (Protocol p. 13 (pdf. 19 ) )

. Four episodes were originally under consideration (the above two, September 17

- 21, 2000, and August 8

- 15, 2002), but due to time and resource constraints the decision was made to
focus on t he July 2000 and July 1999 episodes, especially after initial modeling of the September 2000 ep isode showed poor performance. Chapter 3, p. 3

- 6, (pdf. 8 ) ; Protocol p. 11 ( pdf. 17)

. Both of the modeled episodes displayed concentrations near the monitors‘ oz one design values and had meteorological features typical of high ozone such as slope, eddy, and marine flows (noted in the ―Conceptual Description‖ discussion above) and transport patterns
characteristic of Central California

. Chapter 3, p. 3

- 7 ( pdf. 9)

. EPA find s that the chosen episodes provide an adequate basis for the attainment demonstration.

e. Model Domain and Spatial Resolution

The model domain is chosen based the nature of the area‘s ozone problem and the scale
of the emissions tha t affect the nonattainment area and may be subject to control strategies. Isolated nonattainment areas that are not affected by regional transport of ozone and itsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 26 

### precursors may be able to use a relatively small domain. Some areas of the western U.S. may fall
into thi s category. The modeling domain should be designed so that all major upwind source areas that influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The influence of boundary conditions should be minimized to the extent possible. Gu idance p. 153 (pdf. 162 ).

For the horizontal resolution of the coarse portions of regional grids, we recommend a grid cell size of 12 km if feasible, but not larger than 36 km. For urban and fine scale portions of nested regional grids, it may be desirable to use grid cells about 4 km, but not larger than 12 km. States/Tribes should examine past model applications and data analyses for their area when choosing the fine grid resolution. Past model applications and data analyses may help determine whether a g rid cell size as small as 4 km (or smaller) is necessary for a particular area. Model performance and the relative response to emissions controls should be considered in the decision. States/Tribes should consider diagnostic tests to assess the difference in model performance and response from varying model grid resolution, particularly in oxidant

- limited areas. All ozone monitor locations within a nonattainment area should ordinarily be placed within the fine scale portion of a nested regional grid if nest ed models are used. Guidance p. 157 (pdf. 166)

. Vertical resolution chosen will vary depending on the application. There is no correct minimum number of vertical layers needed in an attainment demonstration. Greater resolution allows more precise estimatio n of mixing heights and avoids unrealistic step increases in mixing; alignment with the layers in the meteorological model can affect accuracy; the lowest layer should generally by no more than 50 meters thick; resolution above the boundary layer can

gener ally be coarser. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100 millibars) have used anywhere from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8

- 15 layers approximately within the boundary layer (below 2500 m) and 4

- 6 layers above the P lanetary Bou ndary Layer (PBL). Guidance p. 159 (pdf. 168 ).

2007 Ozone Plan‘s modeling domain is shown in Figure 4.2 of the Protocol ( p. 27 (pdf.
33 ) ), and was chosen with the objective of including all of the Central Valley o f California and upwind areas. It includes most of California south of Mt. Shasta and north of Los Angeles, and extends from Pacific Ocean to the central Mojave Desert and Nevada. The grid horizontal resolution used is 4 km; the full grid is 185 x 185 cells. Protocol p. 26 ( pdf. 32)

. The July 2000 episode used 20 layers, while the July 1999 episode used 16 layers. Protocol p. 27 ( pdf. 33)

. Given the topography of the SJV, which has bounding mountains to the east, south, and west but which is open to the north and northwest and therefore subject to transport of ozone and emissions of ozone precursors from the Sacramento Valley and from the Sa n Francisco Bay Area, the model domain encompasses the SJV nonattainment area as well as areas likely to contribute to its ozone problem. The boundaries are in rural northern California, the Nevada desert, mountains to the south, over the Pacific ocean, al l areas with low emissions

, and so the model boundary conditions are unlikely to have a substantial effect on the simulations. The 4 km grid horizontal resolution used is considerably more refined than the 12 km Guidance recommendation, and the number of l ayers is consistent with the range in the Guidance. EPA
find s the chosen modeling domain is adequate for the attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 27



## San Joaquin Valley Modeling Domain

Source: Protocol, Figure 4.2, p. 27 (pdf. 33 )

.



### f. Initial and Boundary Conditions

I f there is no larger regional model application available, then it is recommended that background boundary conditions be used to specify initial and boundary concentrations for the attainment demonstration modeling. However, concentration fields derived fr om a larger domain regional or global chemistry model ( i.e.

, nesting approach) is considered more credible than the assumption of static concentrations, since the pollutant concentration fields reflect simulated atmospheric chemical and physical processes driven by assimilated meteorological observations. Therefore, we recommend using boundary conditions derived from a regional or global scale model, whenever possible. We recommend using a ― ramp

- up ‖ period by beginning a simulation prior to a period of inte rest to diminish the importance of initial conditions; we recommend a

ramp

- up period of at least 2

- 3 days for ozone

. Diagnostic testing which indicates a large impact on the model results from initial or boundary conditions may indicate that the domain is not large enough or the ramp

- up period is too short. In either case, it should generally be assumed that
initial and boundary conditions do not change in the future. The use of altered initial or boundary conditions in the future year should be documented and justified. Guidance p. 153 ( pdf. 162)

. 2007 Ozone Plan‘s i nitial and boundary conditions are discussed starting at Protocol p. 36 ( pdf. 42 ) . Generally defaults from earlier EPA guidance document ―Guideline for the Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model‖, EPA, ( EPA

- 450/4

- 91

- 013, July 1991 ) were used as a starting point, but these we re checked against available ozonesonde data and aircraft

measurements. Final decisions on the initial and boundary conditions were made jointly by CARB, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, a nd the Sacramento M etropolitan Air Quality Management District

. Protocol, p.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 28 

### 36 (pdf. 42 ) ; table of values on following page. The boundary conditions were left unchanged for simulation of future years, consistent with the EPA Guidance recommendation. A two

- day ―ramp

- up‖ period was used for both episodes, to minimize the impact of uncertain initial
conditions. Protocol p. 39 (pdf. 45)

. EPA find s that the procedure used to determine boundary and initial conditions is adequate for the attainment demonstration.

g. Meteorological Model Selection and Setup
Generally a standard meteorological model should be used. The recommended approach for generating the meteorological data needed to conduct the attainment demonstration is to apply dynamic meteorological models with four dimensional data assimilation (FDDA). These models use the fundamental equations of momentum, thermodynamics, and moisture to determine the evolution of specific meteorological variables from a given initial state. When modeling past events, the use of data assimilation helps to ―nudge‖ solutions so that they do not diverge greatly from the actual observed meteorological fields. A major benefit of using dynamic meteorological models is that they provide a way of consistently characterizing meteorological conditions at times and locations where observations do not exist. Examples of frequently used meteorological models are listed below ( Guidance p. 160 (pdf. 169 ) ) :

The Penn State University / National Center for Atmospheric Research Mesoscale Model version 5 (MM5)

The Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS)

The Weather Research and Forecasting M odel (WRF)

A description of the methods used to generate the meteorological fields should be included in the modeling protocol. In cases in which standard meteorological modeling ( e.g

. , MM5, RAMS, or WRF in a retrospective analysis mode) is not used, it is recommended that a detailed description of the technique that is used to generate the three

- dimensional meteorological fields be shared with the appropriate EPA regional office(s) prior to conducting the air quality modeling analysis. Guidance p. 161 (pdf

. 170 ).

The meteorological model domain must be large enough to contain the photochemical modeling domain. It is expected that most attainment demonstrations will cover large areas and use nested grids. The outermost grid should capture all upwind areas th at can reasonably be expected to influence local concentrations of ozone, and/or PM 2.5 

### . One should extend the grid 3 to 6 cells beyond the domains of each air quality modeling grid to avoid boundary effects. EPA recommends that the dynamic meteorological m odels use the same grid resolution as desired for the air quality model applications. However, poor meteorological model performance or the extra costs incurred may not warrant finer resolution; in these specific situations it is recommended that the air q uality model application use available results from meteorological models on the next coarser scale. Guidance p. 161 (pdf. 170)

. Physics options in meteorological models allow users to select how a given feature will be simulated. For example, there may b e several options for specifying the planetary boundary layer scheme or the cumulus parameterization. In many situations, the ― optimal ‖ configuration cannot be determined without performing an initial series of sensitivity tests which considerTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 29 

### various comb inations of physics options over specific time periods and regions. While these tests may not ultimately conclude that any one configuration is clearly superior at all times and in all areas, it is recommended that these sensitivity tests be completed, as they should lead to a modeling analysis that is best

- suited for the domain and period being simulated. Typically, the model configuration which yields predictions that provide the best statistical match with observed data over the most cases (episodes, reg ions, etc. ) is the one that should be chosen, although other more qualitative information can also be considered. Additionally, model configurations should be designed to account for the pollutants and time periods that are of most interest. Guidance p. 162 (pdf. 171)

. 2007 Ozone Plan‘s meteorological model selection is discussed starting at Protocol p. 19 (pdf. 25 ) . CARB considered the NCEP Eta model 25



### , as well as RAMS, MM5, and WRF. The Eta model has mainly been used for weather forecasting and not as a research tool, whereas RAMS showed some poor characteristics when used for air quality modeling by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and WRF has been little tested for SIP air quality modeling. MM5, on the other hand has been used extensively f or SIPs, including by CARB, and so was chosen as the meteorological model.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s meteorological model domain c onsists of three nested grids. The innermost is just larger than the photochemical domain that it supplies meteorological fields to; i t has 189 x 1 89 cells, each 4 km on a side. This is nested within a 12 km resolution grid covering the entire State of California, and that in turn is nested within an outer 36 km grid that stretches inland to New Mexico and a similar distance west over th e Pacific Ocean, and that extends from southern Canada to the tip of the Baja California peninsula. P rotocol p. 23 (pdf. 29)

. Boundary conditions for the inner two grids are derived from the output of the next larger grid each is nested within. The July 20 00 episode used 50 vertical layers, and the July 1999 episode used 30 layers. FDDA was used only for the outer two grids; data from some 300 surface and 25 upper air meteorological stations was available for FDDA for the year 2000 CCOS episode.

25 National Centers for Environmental Prediction, Eta Model (Greek eta, η, a height coordinate based on pressure)

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 30



## San Joaq uin Valley Meteorological Domain

Source: Protocol, Figure 4.1, p. 23

.



### 2007 Ozone Plan‘s physics options are listed starting at Protocol p. 29 (pdf. 35 ) , such as
Kain

- Fritsch cumulus parameterization for the ou ter grids (2000 episode only). The Protocol also
states that many combinations of model options were tested before settling on the final choic es. Some of these options are discussed in the following subsection on meteorological model performance.

EPA find s that the meteorological model choice and setup are consistent with the Guidance, and are adequate for use in the attainment demonstration modeling.

h. Meteorological Model Performanc e EPA recommends that States/Tribes devote appropriate effort to the process of evaluating
the meteorological inputs to the air quality model as we believe good meteorological model performance will yield more confidence in predictions from the air quality model. This evaluation should determine if the meteorological model output fields represent a reasonable approximation of the actual meteorology that occurred during the modeling period. This can be done via an operational evaluation ( i.e. , quantitative, statistical, and graphical comparisons). ATSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 31 

### second objective of the evaluation should be to iden tify and quantify the existing biases and errors in the meteorological predictions in order to allow for an downstream assessment of how the air quality modeling results are affected by issues associated with the meteorological data. This can be done via a more phenomenological assessment

, i.e. , generally qualitative comparisons of observed features vs. their depiction in the model data. Guidance p. 163 (pdf. 172)

. Operational Evaluation: The operational evaluation results should focus on the values
and distributions of specific meteorological parameters as paired with and compared to observed data. It is recommended that the observation

- model matching be paired as closely as possible in space and time. Typical statistical comparisons of the key meteoro logical parameters will include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, mean absolute error, mean absolute normalized error, root mean square error (systematic and unsystematic), and an index of agreement. For modeling exercises over la rge domains and entire ozone seasons or years, it is recommended that the operational evaluation be broken down into individual segments such as geographic sub

- regions and/or months/seasons to allow for a more comprehensive assessment of the meteorological strengths and weaknesses.
Phenomenological Evaluation: Within the conceptual description of a particular modeling exercise, it is recommended that the specific meteorological parameters that influence air quality be identified and qualitatively ranked in importance. When evaluating meteorological models or any other source of meteorological data, the focus of the phenomenological evaluation should be on those specific meteorological phenomena that are thought to strongly affect air pollution formation and transport within the scope of a specific analysis. It is expected that this

event

- oriented evaluation will need to summarize model performance in terms of statistical metrics such as probability of detection and false alarm rate. As an example of a potent ial phenomenological analysis, many regional air quality modeling exercises attempt to assess the effects of transport of emissions from one area to a downwind area with an intent to establish

source

- receptor relationships. For these types of modeling anal yses, accurate transport wind trajectories are needed to properly establish these source

- receptor linkages. In this type of model application, a useful event

- based meteorological evaluation would be to compare model

- derived trajectories versus those based on ambient data to determine what error distance can be associated with the model fields.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s Meteorological Model Performance is discussed starting at Appendix
F p. F

- 61 (pdf. 63 ) . Performance statistics are presented in graphical form for v arious sub

regions of the SJV. They generally show results averaged over multiple sites within each sub

region, and are only a subset of the many site

- specific plots that were examined during development of the meteorological modeling. There are a) time se ries plots over the days of each episode showing observed and simulated wind speed, wind direction, or temperature, b) scatt er plots of wind speed gross error against wind speed root mean square error, and c) scatter plots of temperature gross e rror agains t temperature bias. The scatter plots include lines indicating performance benchmarks. The plots are provided for the 1999 episode staring at p. F

- 67 (pdf.
69 ) , and for the 2000 episode at p. F

- 79 (pdf. 81 ) . Finally, maps of horizontal wind vectors are
inc luded for the 2000 episode with various physics options, starting at p. F

- 89 (pdf. 91 )

. For the 1999 episode, statistics and plots were prepared for three different MM5 runs: without FDDA, with FDDA, and with FDDA but excluding data from short (2 meter)

me teorological towers. CARB notes that FDDA improved results, but excluding the 2 mete r dataTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 32 

### made little difference. The regular FDDA run of MM5 was used for the air quality modeling. CARB provided summaries of some of the results: For the Bay Area region, w ind speeds were generally underpredicted and temperatures showed good agreement with observations, while for the Sacramento region wind speed performance was good , and temperatures tended to be underpredicted during the day and overpredicted during the mo rning. For the Central, Southern, and Northern San Joaquin regions, winds tended to be underpredicted some, and again temperatures tended to be underpredicted during the day and ove rpredicted during the morning. The simulations were the result of substanti al effort by the CARB and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and though not ideal, were deemed acceptable for use in modeling. ( See results summary staring at p. F

- 65 (pdf. 67 ).
For the 2000 episode, statistics and plots were prepared for six di fferent MM5 runs: four produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with alternative
land

- surface model physics options and roughness lengths, and two produced by CARB, with and without FDDA. These runs had various choice of soil physics and boundary layer parameterizations . After noting the variability of results for different locations, CARB states that the NOAA runs with increase roughness length tended to worsen performance for temperature. CARB also states that all of the FDDA runs did fairly well for the wind field, but for temperature the initial NOAA run performed the best. (Although for the Angiola temperature time series included in the documentation, the CARB runs look better. Figure 1

- 12(a), p. F

- 87 (pdf. 89)

. The
i nitial NOAA run of MM5 was used for the air quality modeling. ( See results summ ary staring at

p. F

- 77 (pdf. 79).

CARB states that , in addition to these operational evaluation analyses, qualitative performance analyses of the meteorological model were under taken . These included comparison of modeled and observed wind patterns, to ensure that the model is reproduc ing phenomena known to occur in the SJV, such as the sea breeze, the Fresno eddy, and slope and drainage flows. They also included comparison of win d profiler observations with the simulated wind field at the profiler location, and of upper air observations with simulated mixing layer height. p. F

- 64 (pdf. 66)

. The operational evaluation undertaken by CARB is consistent with the recommendations
in the EPA Guidance, in terms of meteorological parameters examined, statistics computed, and the consideration of differing sub

- regions within the model domain. The CARB qualitative analyses mentioned above are also c onsistent with the EPA Guidance recommendati ons for a phenomenological evaluation. EPA find s that the meteorological model evaluation and the model performance are adequate to support the air quality model for the attainment demonstration.

i. Emission Inventory
Air quality modeling requires emissio n inputs for base case, baseline, and future modeling years. Preparation of emissions data for air quality models for the base and future years requires several steps. First, States and Tribes need to compile base

- year inventories for their modeling region ( e.g. , the States and Tribes in the modeling grid). For ozone model applications, emission inventories should include a complete accounting of anthropogenic and biogenic VOC (speciated), NO
x 

### , and CO. Second, modelers must collect ― ancillary data ‖ associat ed with the inventories, which prescribes the spatial, temporal, and chemical speciation information about the emission inventory. Third, modelers use the ancillary data for ― emissions modeling ‖

. Emissions models spatially, temporally, chemically, and vert ically allocate emission inventoriesTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 33 

### to the resolution needed by air quality model s. Fourth, modelers must collect data on growth rates and existing control programs for use in projecting the base year emission inventories to the future year, and then use an emissions model to prepare that future year inventory data for input to the air quality model. Fifth, emissions inventories that reflect the emissions reductions needed for attainment will have to be prepared for air quality modeling.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s e missions inputs are discussed starting at Protocol p. 40 (pdf. 46 ) start. The Protocol provides description of the modeling inventory preparation process. The topics covered include: quality assurance checks, the effects of growth and of the application of control measures, temporally resolved emissions for some larger point sources, temporal
allocation of annual emissions to account fo r monthly and weekly variations, diurnal profiles of emissions, temperature dependence of emissions from some source type s, California

- specific vehicle emissions from the EMFAC model, a summary of some of the algorithms and inputs to
the BEIGIS biogenic emissions model

, spatial allocation of the various source category emissions into model grid squares (via known coordinates for point sources and for links of the roadway network, land use and demographic spatial surrogates for area source categories), speciation of VOC emissions into particular chemical species needed by the photochemical model‘s chemical mechanism, and speci ation of NO
x 

### into NO and NO 2



### . The Protocol‘s description of the emissions input process is fairly comprehensive, and
covers all the k ey topics in the EPA Guidance. EPA find s that the emission inventory prepared for input to the air quality model is adequat e to support the attainment demonstration.

j. Air Quality Model Performance
Model performance can be assessed in terms of its ability to replicate observed concentrations of ozone and its precursors (operational evaluation), and in terms of the model‘s

a bility to correctly portray physical processes, and thus its ability to simulate the effect of emission changes (diagnostic evaluation).

For the operational evaluation , useful statistical metrics include mean normalized bias (MNB), mean normalized gross e rror (MNGE), peak bias (APPB), and peak error (APPE)

. The defining formulas are at Guidance p. 198 (pdf. 207). Other statistics such as mean bias, mean error, root mean square error, correlation coefficients, etc

. should also be calculated to the extent
th at they provide meaningful information. Graphical analyses can also be useful, such as time series and scatter plots of modeled vs. observed concentrations, spatial plots or animations of modeled ozone in each grid cell with observed values noted for monit or locations. EPA no longer recommends specific performance goals for statistical metrics, and cautions against their use as ―pass/fail‖ tests

. Guidance p. 216 ( pdf. 225)

. Instead, the results of various tests and analyses should be weighed qualitatively to assess the adequacy of mo del performance. Appendix B to the Guidance lists sets of performance goals and results that have been used in recent model evaluations.

For the diagnostic evaluation , the Guidance discusses a number of approaches, including observational models, probing tools, receptor models, retrospective ana lyses, and sensitivity analyses

. Guidance p. 208 (pdf. 217). Observational models include the use of
ind icator species ratios that give clues about which processes are dominant, and whether VOC or
NO
x 

### is the limiting precursor for ozone formation. Probing tools include source apportionment tools that track the chemical products of emissions from specified so urce groups, the directTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 34 

### decoupled method (DDM) that reports model sensitivity to input changes without rerunning the model, and process analysis (PA) that tracks the contributions of particular physical and chemical process to model results. A retrospectiv e analysis compares modeled trends to observed trends given known emission changes over a historical period. Sensitivity analyses explore the model response to changes in important inputs such as total emissions, alternative boundary conditions, alternativ e meteorological models or model setups, alternative vertical layer schemes, and finer or coarse grid resolutio n. All of these methods can help to determine whether the model responds in a physically reasonable way to change, and to identify inputs that ma y need further refinement.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s air quality model performance is discussed briefly in 2007 Ozone Plan Chapter 3, and in detail in Appendix F 26



### . Chapter 3 states: ―In general, modeling of these episodes met performance standards, but some concen trations were under

- predicted at sites in the SJVAB.‖ p. 3

- 7 ( pdf. 9)

. Appendix F lists statistics that were calculated to evaluate model performance for 1

- hour ozone and 8

- hour ozone (Table 2

- 1, p. F

- 99 (pdf. 101 ) ); these are the substantially same as the statistics recommended in the EPA Guidance. The exception is that instead of the peak bias and peak error, a comparable ―unpaired peak ratio‖ (―UPR‖) statistic is listed; here ―unpaired‖ means that concentrations are not paired hour by hour, bu t rather th e peak concentration for the day is considered, regardless of the particular hour. The abbreviations used in the Plan also differ from EPA‘s: EPA‘s mean normalized bias MNB is called just NB, and
mean normalized gross error MNGE is called just GE. The eval uation sets a benchmark performance goals for NB of being with 15 percent , and for GE of being within 30 percent ; these were carried forward from the earlier EPA guidance on the 1

- hour standard . Appendix F, p. F

- 95 (pdf. 97 ) and p. F

- 97 (pdf. 99). Since th e SJV modeling domain has complex flow and topography, these statistics were calculated for 15 sub

- regions, to assess performance throughout the air basin instead of lumping the disparate locations together in a single metric, which could obscure local per formance problems. An additional criterion of a concentration of at least 85 ppb within 15 km of the monitor ( p. F

- 96 (pdf. 98 ) ) is imposed for choosing which days to include in
the calculation of relative response factors (RRFs); See the following subsect ion on the Modeled
Attainment Test

. The numeric values for the statistics are not presented in the Plan, but they are portrayed graphically. In addition to time series plots of monitored and modeled CO, ozone, NO, and NO 2 

### , Appendix F has scatter plots of n ormalized bias (NB) against the UPR. These are presented for
both 1

- hour and 8

- hour ozone, for each sub

- region, and for each of the two modeled episodes.
The 1999 episode performance is summarized on p. F

- 102 (pdf. 104 ) , followed by a table showing whethe r each day meets the RRF inclusion criteria for each sub

- region (tables on p. F

103 (pdf. 105 ) ). The time series plots start at p. F

- 104 pdf.106, and the scatter plots start at p. F

109 ( pdf. 111 )) . For the Central and Southern SJV regions, ozone is stated to be underpredicted during the day and overpredicted during the morning, while for the Northern SJV region ozone i s stated to be predicted well. Performance for NO 2 

### is stated to vary over the three regions, and for NO to be somewhat underpredicted.
The 2000 episode performance is summarized starting at p. F

- 113 (pdf. 115 ) , followed by a table showing whether each day meets the RRF inclusion criteria for each sub

- region (tables on

26 The Modeling Protocol has essentially the same discussion as in Appendix F, starting at p.87 (pdf.93).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 35 

### p. F

- 116 ( pdf.118 ) ). The time series plots start at p. F

- 117 ( pdf.119 )

, and the scatter plots start at

p. F

- 122 (pdf. 124 ) . For the Central and Southern SJV regions, ozone is stated to be in excellent agreement with observations, while for the Northern SJV region ozone on some days is overpredicted. Performance for NO 2 

### is stat ed to vary over the three regions, and for NO to be good.
Examination of the 2000 episode time series plots showed that there tends to be overprediction in the San Francisco Bay Area and Northern SJV regions, slight overprediction in the Sacramento and Cen tral SJV regions. For the Southern SJV region, which had the highest ozone concentrations, there is some underprediction on the highest days, and some overprediction on other days, though the disagreement was not large. Overall performance appears to be go od.



## Model Performance for Southern SJV Sub

- Region , July 2000 Episode

Source: Plan Appendix F, Figure 2

- 12, p. F

- 120 ( pdf. 122 )

.



### In addition to these statistics and graphics that are part of an operational evaluation, the Plan lists sensitivity tests that were undertaken. Table 2

- 3, p. F

- 100 (pdf. 102). These included typical diagnostic tests such as zeroing out biogenic, anthropogenic, or mobile emissions; changing ozone boundary conditions; changing NO
x 

### initial conditions; and doubling biogenic emissions. In the ―Results for Model Sensitivity Tests

, ‖ 27 

### the Plan provides table of the ozone changes at each monitoring station, and color

- coded maps showing the results over the entire modeling domain, and some brief explanatory text. In each case, the model resp onded in a reasonable way to the changes; for example there were substantial ozone decreases when biogenic emissions were removed, and modest increases when the ozone boundary condition is increased. In a number of cases with reduced or removed emissions, there were ozone increases immediately downwind of a few urban areas; this is explained by noting that the removed NO
x 

### emissions were no longer titrating ozone. 28 

### The effect of ozone boundary condition changes was mainly at

27 The results are listed in the Model Performa nce Evaluation table of contents at p.F

- 59 pdf.61, but do not

appea r in some versions Appendix F. C ARB provided the results in ―Results for Model Sensitivity Tests‖, file ―SJV OZONE SENSITIVITY TEST RESULTS, CHAPTER 4

- 2011

- 08

- 30.pdf‖

28 NO
x is mostly emit ted as NO, which "titrates" ozone (O 3 ) to oxygen (O 2 ), so its first effect is to decrease ozone, even though the ultimate effect is to increase ozone further downwind

. Thus, l ower NO
x means less ozone removal and higher ozone, at least nearby.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 36 

### the outer domain boundaries, which provides assurance that the model results are not overly driven by the boundary conditions, which can be relatively uncertain. These tests show that the
model is performing in a physically reasonable way.
An extensive set of performance statistics and sensitivity analyses was undertaken to assess model performance, consistent with the Guidance, and the model was shown to perform well.
EPA find s the model perform ance is adequate for conducting the attainment demonstration.

k. Modeled Attainment Test

A modeled attainment test is an exercise in which an air quality model is used to
simulate current and future air quality. If future estimates of ozone concentration s are less than the NAAQS, then this element of the attainment test is satisfied. Our recommended test is one in which model estimates are used in a ― relative ‖ rather than ― absolute ‖ sense. That is, we take the ratio of the model‘s future to current (basel ine) predictions at monitors. We call these ratios relative response factors , RRFs. Future ozone concentrations are estimated at existing monitoring sites by multiplying the modeled relative response factor at locations ― near ‖ each monitor by the observati on

- based ― baseline ‖ design value for the monitor . The resulting predicted ― future concentrations ‖ are compared to NAAQS. Guidance p. 15 (pdf. 24)

. Future concentration
= (baseline design value) * (model future prediction) / (model baseline prediction)

= (baseline design value) * RRF

After analyzing how RRFs vary with the number of days modeled and with the choice of minimum ozone threshold, EPA recommended several criteria for day selection to ensure that the RRFs are robust in the face of natural variabi lity (Guidance p. 146 (pdf. 155 ) ):

If there are 10 or more days with daily maximum 8

- hour average baseline modeled ozone > 85 ppb, then use an 85 ppb threshold.

If there are less than 10 days with daily maximum 8

- hour average baseline modeled ozone > 85 pp b, then reduce the threshold down to as low as 70 ppb until there are 10 days in the mean RRF calculation.

If there are less than 10 days with daily maximum 8

- hour average modeled ozone > 70 ppb, then use all days > 70 ppb.

Don‘t calculate an RRF for sites with less than 5 days > 70 ppb.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s NAAQS attainment test is discussed in two places in Appendix F 29



### , starting at p. F

- 3 (pdf. 5 ) , with a repetition at p. F

- 96 (pdf. 98 ) of the RRF inclusion criterion of a concentration of at least 85 ppb wi thin 15 km of the monitor. Tables on p. F

- 128 (pdf. 130 ) give
the number of days meeting the NB and GE performance goals discussed in the previous subsection, and so available for the RRF calculations for each sub

- region for the 1999 and the 2000 episodes. The Plan provides an RRF table and ozone isopleth diagrams (―carrying capacity diagrams‖) for each monitoring site, for the two future years of 2020 and 2023. Each table has a

29 The Model ing Protocol has essentially the same discussion as in Appendix F, starting at p. 93 (pdf. 99).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 37 

### column for every day modeled in the two episodes, and has entries for observed and modeled peak concentration, modeled peak within 15 km, design value, average of the modeled peak over days eligible for inclusion in the RRF calculation, and the future ye ar concentration within 15 km. The ratio of the latter two is the RRF itself, whi ch is not explicitly shown. Below each table are four ozone isopleth diagrams, which show ozone concentrations for various combinations of
NO
x 

### and VOC emissions reduction s (0%, 20%, 40%, and 60% each); note that the reductions are relative to future year emissions without new controls beyond the baseline. The isopleths show the ozone result with and without the application of the RRFs, and with and without an ―offset‖ of 40 ppb (which is assumed to be a background value not affected by emissions reduction s ), for a total of four combinations.
The attainment test was based on the RRF incorporating the offset

. Protocol, p. 98 (pdf. 104). The reductions needed by the plan overall were driven by results at the Arvin monitor in the southern SJV . 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3

- 8

. This site has a base year design value of 114 ppb, and according to the isopleth diagram (or rather interpolation based on the ozone concentrations and the percent NO
x 

### reduction it corresponds to, assuming zero percent benefit from additional
VOC c ontrol), a 47 percent emissions reduction is required for attainment (Chapter 3, p. 3

- 8, (pdf. 10 ) ; Appendix F, p. F

- 38, (pdf. 40 ) ; isopleth diagram with RRFs and with 40 ppb offset). This translates into a 75 percent reduction from base year NO
x 

### emission levels of 642 tpd , or an attainment target of 160 tpd. Chapter 3, p. 3

- 8, (pdf. 10 ) ; also Plan Executive Summary p. ES

- 8

. With respect to the isopleths or ―carrying capacity dia grams ‖, Chapter 3 states that ― it is assumed that emission patterns, VOC reacti vity and other modeling parameters hold constant over time. This assumption implies that controls are applied evenly throughout the Valley... if transportation patterns in 2008 are extremely different ... it might not be reasonable to assume that ... same ozone concentration at the same site... When considering all uncertainties in modeling, however, this variation is considered minor. ‖ 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3

- 13

. In other words, when total emissions no more than the levels indicated on the carrying capacity dia gram , it is assumed that the NAAQS is attained

. This is assumed even though the model response would be slightly different if it directly simulated the control measures themselves, since their effects are not necessarily evenly applied to all locations in the SJV.
The Plan applies the modeled attainment test in accordance with EPA Guidance, except that the Plan‘s version is more conservative, since it assumes a constant 40 ppb background. Although the 2023 effect of new control measures was not directly modeled, as the Plan states, given all the uncertainties the carrying capacity approach used is acceptable. EPA find s that the Plan‘s modeled attainment test was correctly applied, and that the modeling demonstrates attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

l. Unmonitored Area Analysis

An unmonitored area analysis (UAA) uses a combination of model output and ambient data to identify areas without a monitor that might exceed the NAAQS in the base year or after application of the control strategy. This is necessar y because the recommended modeled attainment test based on relative reduction factors may be applied only at monitor locations, and is particularly necessary in nonattainment areas where the ozone or PM 2.5 

### monitoring network just meets or minimally exceeds the size of the network required to report data to Air Quality System (AQS). The analysis should include, at a minimum, all nonattainment counties and counties surrounding the nonattainment area (located within the State). In order to examineTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 38 

### unmonitored areas in all portions of the domain, it is recommended to use interpolated spatial fields of ambient data combined with gridded modeled outputs

. G uidance p. 29 (pdf. 38). EPA‘s MATS software can perform this calculation, but o ther methods may also be used. Due to the location of monitored data, the results of the analysis are less certain than for the modeled
attainment test and should be handled on a case by case basis, possibly by additional analyses or tracking. G uidance pp. 32 and 33 ( pdf. 41 and 42 ) , r e s pectively.

Gradient

- adjusted spatial fields are first created for the base year. Future year estimates can then be created by applying gridded RRFs to the gradient

- adjusted spatial fields. The basic steps are as follows:

1. 

### Interpolate base year ambient dat a to create a set of spatial fields ;

2. 

### Adjust the spatial fields using gridded model output gradients (base year values) ;

3. 

### Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient

- adjusted spatial fields ; and

4. 

### Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAA QS in the future.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s u nmonitored a rea a nalysis is discussed in CARB‘s U nmonitored A rea A nalysis document cited above. The 2007 Ozone Plan original submittal section F.4 entitled ―Analysis of Model

- Simulated, Unmonitored Peaks‖ contained only a placeholder sentence ( p. F

- 14 (pdf. 16) ) , but CARB later submitted its U nmonitored A rea A nalysis that uses EPA‘s
MATS software

. This analysis followed the four steps laid out in th e Guidance, and provided maps at each step, colored according to the resulting ozone level (or the RRF, for step 3). Around each monitor the maps show include a rectangle containing a 7 x 7 set of 4 km grid cells

, portraying the area that monitor is presum ed to represent in the EPA Guidance modeled attainment test. CARB notes that the monitors show adequate coverage of the regions with elevated ozone concentrations, with the possible exception of a single (orange

- colored) grid cell in the southern SJV that is at the edge of several monitor rectangles. CARB suggests that a source category with emissions that were overestimated at the time of the modeling, unspecified natural gas combustion, may be responsible for the higher value in that cell. Finally, CARB n otes that the recent relocation of the Arvin monitor toward the west will better cover this area.
Additional details of the CARB analysis of this grid cell would have been desirable. However, given the uncertainty of the analysis and the lack of a strong g radient in the step 4 fields, there do not appear to be any unmonitored NAAQS violations. The relocation of the Arvin monitor may be able to provide additional assurance that the potentially high ozone in this grid cell i s an artifact of the modeling. EPA find s that the unmonitored area analysis was properly performed, and that its results support the attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 39



## Unmonitored Area Ozone Estimate from Gradient

- Adjusted Fields

Source: Unmonitored Area Analysis, Figure 4, p. 7



### m. Weight of E

vidence Determination
States/Tribes should always perform complementary analyses of air quality, emissions and meteorological data, and consider modeling outputs other than the results of the attainment test. Such analyses are instrumental in guiding the conduct of an air quali ty modeling application. Sometimes, the results of corroboratory analyses may be used in a weight of evidence determination to show that attainment is likely despite modeled res ults which may be inconclusive. The further the attainment test is from being p assed, the more compelling contraryTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 40 

### evidence produced by corroboratory analyses must be to draw a conclusion differing from that implied by the mo deled attainment test results. Guidance p. 17 ( pdf. 26)

. Supplemental analyses
could include additional modeli ng using alternative models and inputs, modeling apportionment and process analysis tools, alternative metrics (such as change in the number of grid cells above the NAAQS), trends in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, receptor modeling, and indicato r species approaches.

T ABLE 

### B

- 1



## Guidelines For Weight of Evidence Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment Test Supplemental Analyses Ozone Annual PM 2.5 24

- Hour PM 2.5

Future Design Value < 82 ppb, all
monitor sites Future Design Value

< 14.5 μg/m 3

, all
monitor sites Future Design Value

< 62 μg/m 3 , all
monitor sites Basic supplemental analyses

should be completed to confirm
the outcome of the modeled attainment test

Future Design Value
82

- 87 ppb, at one or more sites/grid
cells Future Design Value

14.5

- 15.5 μg/m 3 , at

one or more sites/grid cells Future Design Value

62

- 67 μg/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid
cells A weight of evidence

demonstration should be
conducted to determine if aggregate supplemental analyses support the modeled attainment

test

Future Design Value > 88 ppb, at one or more sites/grid cells Future Design Value

> 15.5 μg/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid
cells Future Design Value

> 68 μg/m 3 , at one or more sites/grid
cells More qualitative results are less

likely to support a conclusion differing from the outcome of the
modeled attainment test.



### 2007 Ozone Plan‘s weight of evidence determination is discussed in Plan Appendix F and also the CARB Staff Report‘s Appendix B. These documents largely cover the same material, except that CARB S taff Report, Appendix B has a n additional heading ―Characterization and Frequency of Episodic Conditions‖ that provides detail on the different meteorological conditions associated with ozone exceedances ( CARB Staff Report, Appendix B

p. 9 ( pdf. 11 ) ) , and its coverage of ―Precursor Trends‖ is somewhat different (Appendix B

, p. 17 ff ( pdf. 1 9 ff ). Since Appendix F is part of the Plan per se , and also appears to have been written later, EPA considers it to be the Plan‘s weight of evidence analysis.

T he Plan‘s Appendix F concludes with ―Corroborative Analyses/Weight Of Evidence Elements‖ ( p. F

- 138 ( pdf. 140 ) )

, which contains supplemental analyses in support of the attainment demonstration. These include ozone air quality trends, meteorologically adjusted ozone trends, and precursor emission and ambient trends, all of which show continued progress toward NAAQS attainment.

The trends for 8

- hour ozone design value and maximum concentration among the worst 30 days each year show just a small amount of progr ess over the 1990

- 2005 period. The 8

- hour ozone design value (which is the running 3

- year average of the 4 th 

### highest daily oz one value forTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 41 

### each year) shows slightly more progress, and the decline in the number of 8

- hour exceedance days is substantial. Appendix F, Figure 5

- 1, p. F

- 138 ( pdf. 140)

. There has also been substantial progress in most of the sub

- regions within the SJV, though the Sequoia area has worsened, and progress at the Arvin site has been less than at other locations. Appendix F, Figure 5

- 4, p. F

- 143 ( pdf. 144)

. When the average of the Top 10, Top 20, and Top 30 concentrations for each year is adjusted to remove f

or the effect of unfavorable meteorology via a regression procedure, the downward trends appear stronger, though there are high values in 2003 and 2004. Appendix F, Figure 5

- 7, p. F

- 148 ( pdf. 150)

.



## Meteorology

- Adjusted Ozone Trends for Mean of Top 10, 20 , and 30 Days

Source: Plan Appendix F, Figure 5

- 7, p. F

- 148 ( pdf. 150 ).



### NO
x 

### and VOC (comparable to ―ROG‖ in the Plan documents) emissions have had a steady downwar d trend between 1990 and 2005. Appendix F, Figures 5

- 11 and 5

- 12, p. F

- 151

, (pdf. 153 ).
Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations (PAMS) measurements of ambient concentrations of NO
x 

### and VOC, and also the reactivity of the VOC mix, have also showed steady declines. Progress was fairly flat during 1999

- 2002, and NO
x 

### progress is less than fo r the VOC and reactivity metrics. Appendix F, Figure 5

- 13, p. F

- 152 ( pdf. 154)

. EPA find s that these analyses support the attainment demonstration prediction of ozone NAAQS attainment, and constitute an adequate weight of evidence determination.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 42 

### 3. Conclu sions

The modeling used for the attainment demonstration was made available to the public for
comment at the same time as the draft 2007 Ozone Plan , and were subject to public hearing as part of final version of the Plan.

T h e air quality modeling documen tation in Chapter 3 and Appendi x F of the Plan and CARB‘s Unmonitored Area Analysis, contains all the elements required by EPA‘s modeling guidance. The modeling is b ased on the best and most current information available at the time
the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozo ne SIP was developed. Based on our evaluation discussed above, we
find that the modeling analysis used for the attainment demonstration in the 2007 Ozone Plan

meet s the CAA section 18 2(c)( 2 ) (A) requirement that the plan provide for attainment of the NAAQS, and that the modeling in the 2007 Ozone Plan provide s an adequate basis for the Plan‘s reasonably available control measure s , reasonable further progress, and attainment
demonstrations

.
Public Comments Received on the Proposed Finding on the Air Quality Modeling
We received no comments in response to our proposed finding that the air quality modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan met applicable EPA requirements and provided an adequate basis for the SIP ‘s RACM, RFP, and attainment demonstration.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 43 

## C . Reasonably Available Control Measures

1. Requirement s for RACM

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 minim um, 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
attainmen t demonstration, the state must also submit a SIP revision showing that it has adopted
all RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet any RFP requirements. See 40 CFR § 51. 9 12(d).

E PA has previously provided guidan ce interpreting the RACM requirement in the General Preamble at 13560 30 

### and in a memorandum entitled ―Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,‖ John Seitz, Direc tor, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz memo). 31 

### In summary, EPA guidance provides that to address the requirement to adopt all RACM

, states should consider all potential ly 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,

a dvance the area‘s attainment date by one or more years. 32



### EPA defines RACM as any pot ential control measure for application to point, area, on

road and non

- road emission s s ource categories that meets certain criteria . These criteria are that the control measure is (1) technologically feasible, (2) economically feasible, (3) does not cause ―substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts

, ‖ (4) is not ―absurd, unenforceable, or

30 The ―General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,‖ published at 57 FR 13498 on A pril 16, 1992, describes EPA‘s preliminary view on how we would interpret various SIP planning provisions in title I of 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.

31 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

, 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

, ‖ December 14, 2000

.

32 For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) requires the implementation of reasonably available control technologies on all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which EPA has issued Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT
und er section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources of NO
x . 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 NO
x per year. See CAA sections 182(e) and (f)

.
Under the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, states are required to submit SIP revision s meeting the RACT requirement of by 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 d eadline. See 40 CFR § 51.912 (a).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 44 

### impracticable

, ‖ and (5) collectively can advance the attainment date by at least one year. General Preamble at 13560.
Any measures that are necessary to meet the se requirements which are not already either federally promulgated, part of the state‘s SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted in enforceable form as part of a state‘s attainment plan for the area. See 70 FR 71612, 71659.

2. RACM Analysis in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

The 200 7 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy are part s of a series of air quality plans that the District and CARB have developed to provide for attainment of the federal air quality standards in the SJV

. 33 

### These planning efforts have resulted in a comprehensive set of rules and programs that address the great majority of emissions sources in the Valley.

For the SJV 200 7 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB, and the local agencies (through the SJV‘s e ight 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 age nc y‘ s efforts below.

a. District RACM Analysis

The District‘s RACM analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendi ces H and I of the 200 7 Ozone Plan. The analysis focused on controls for the categories of stationary
and area sources under the District‘s direct jurisdiction

. 34



### To identify potential RACM, the District reviewed potential measures from a number of sources including but not limited to:

control strategies and measures from other districts and agencies, including the South
Coast AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Bay Area AQMD, Ventura County
APCD , Houston

- Galveston Area Council of Governments, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Fresno Council of Governments;

workshops held by the South Coast AQMD and CARB;

existing District controls;

33 These plans include the 2003 PM 10 Plan (approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)), the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), and 2008 PM 2.5 Plan ( approved in part and disapproved in part o n November 9 , 201 1 (7 6 FR 69896).

34 As required by CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40 CFR § 51.912(a), the District adopted a RACT SIP on August 17, 2006 which was submitted on January 31, 2007. This RACT SIP was based on a major source threshold of 25 tpy. As discussed previously, the State requested and EPA granted a reclassification of the SJV to extreme for
the 8

- hour ozone standard. The major source threshold in extreme areas is 10 tpd. See CAA section 182(e). On April 16, 2009, the District adopted a revi sed RACT SIP intended to both address the lowered threshold and to respond to EPA and public comments on its RACT rules. The 2009 RACT SIP was submitted on June 18, 2009.

EPA proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove that 2009 SJV RACT SIP on September 9,
2011

. See 76 FR 55842

. We discuss the revised RACT SIP here only to extent that it informs our evaluation of whether SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 45 

### further study measures in the SJV Extreme [1

- hour] Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan ;
measures suggested by the public in various forums including town hall meetings, workshop s on the 2008 Ozone Plan and during public comment periods on the Plan ; and

recommendations from CARB‘s 2003 audit of the District

. 200 7 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 this set of potential controls, the District developed a Stationary Source Regulatory Implementation Schedule (200 7 Ozone Plan, Table 6

- 1, revise d December 18, 2008 ) whi ch gives the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of the selected RACM measures

. See
T ab le C

- 1 below

. The schedule was developed based on a variety of factors, including:

t echnological feasibility and practicality of emiss ion controls; magnitude of emissions from the source category and likely emission s reductio ns ; cost, financial impacts, and potential for socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, profitability); District authority and enforceability of emission s reductions; rate and timing of emissions reductions; public acceptability, including interests and co ncerns of community members; pollutants reduced

– NO
x 

### , or VOC or both ; any potential adverse environmental impacts; and

. potential for disparate environmental impacts (environmental jus tice).

2007 Ozone Plan, p. 6

- 3

. The District also identified a number of source categories for which feasibility studies to refine the inventory and evaluate potential controls would be done. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table
6

- 2. Updated information on the status of many of these feasibility s tudies can be found in the 2010 Ozone MCR, section 3.2 and the SJV 20 11 PM 2.5 

### Progress Report, section 2.2.
The Plan also includes descriptions of the District‘s incentive programs (which target on

and off

- road engine replacement with an emphasis on diesel engines), its innovative strategies program including its Fast Track emissions reductions measures, and public education efforts.
See 200 7 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8, 2010 Ozone MCR, Sections 5 and 6, and SJV 2011
PM 2.5 

### Progress Report, section 2.3 and 2.4

b. Local Jurisdictions’ RACM Analysis
The local jurisdictions‘ RACM/RACT analysis was conducted by the SJV‘s eight MPOs and is summarized in Chapter 9 and described in detail in Appendix C of the 2007 Ozone Plan. 35 

### This analysis, which focused on potential NO
x 

### emissions reductions from tran sportation control

35 These eight MPOs represent the eight counties in the San Joaquin Valley air basin: the San Joaquin Council of Governments, the Stanislaus Council of Governments, the Merced County Association of Governments, the Madera County Transportation Commission, th e Council of Fresno County Governments, Kings County Association of Governments, the Tulare County Association of Governments and the Kern Council of Governments

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 46 

### measures (TCM). TCM are generally measures designed to reduce emissions from on

- road motor vehicles through reductions in vehicle miles traveled , vehicle trips, and/or traffic congestion.

T ABLE 

### C

- 1



## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule
Number Adoption

Date Earliest

Compliance
Date Reductions

Start

S

- GOV

- 1 Composting Biosolids 4565 1 st Q

- 2007 2008 2008

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 4103 2 nd Q

- 2007 2007 2007

2 nd Q

– 2010 2010 2 010

S

- SOL

- 11 Solvents 4661/4662/4663 3 rd Q

– 200 7 2010 2010

S

- COM

- 5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 3 rd Q

– 2007 2010 2012

S

- IND

- 24 Soil Decontamination 4651 3 rd Q

– 2007 2008 NA

S

- IND

- 6 Polystyrene Foam 4682 3 rd Q

– 2007 2010 2011

S

- PET

- 1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 4623

4624 4 th Q

– 2007 2009 2009

S

- PET

- 3 Aviation Fuel Storage

— 3 rd Q

– 2007 2010 2010

S

- COM

- 1 Large Boilers 4306

4320 3 rd Q

– 2008 201 1 201 1

S

- COM

- 2 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3 rd Q

– 2008 2 020 2012 from
incentives

S

- COM

- 7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3 rd Q

– 2008 Varies 200 8

S

- SOL

- 20 Graphic Arts 4607 4 th Q

– 2008 2011 2011

S

- COM

- 9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1 st Q

– 2009 Attrition 2011

S

- GOV

- 5 Composting Green Waste 4566 4 th Q

- 2010 2012 2012

S

- IND

- 21 Flares 4311 2 nd Q

– 2009 NA NA

S

- IND

- 14 Brandy and Wine Aging 4695 3 rd Q

– 2009 NA NA

S

- SOL

- 1 Architectural Coatings 4601 4 th Q

– 200 9 2012 2012

S

- AGR

- 2 CAFO 4570 2 nd Q

– 20 10 2011 2011

S

- SOL

- 6 Adhesives 4653 3 rd Q

– 2010 2012 2012

Source: 200 7 Ozone Plan , Table 6

- 1, revised December 18, 2008.



### The SJV MPOs developed a l ocal RACM strategy which consisted of two parts: (1) evaluation of potential RACM for advancing the 8

- hour ozone standard attainment date and (2)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 47 

### the adoption of a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) policy to fund cost

- effective
emission s reduction s projects.

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the MPOs evaluated potential TCM through a multi

- step
process: Step 1

. Develop a list of potential reasonably available local control measures

. T o identify potential measures, the MPOs reviewed measures from previous San Joaquin Val ley RACM processes, more recent guidance materials, applicable SIPs, and suggest ion s made by the public during the District‘s Town Hall meetings. The resulting list of approximately 20 new measures not previously analyzed for the SJV was organized by CAA S ection 108(f) transportation control measure categories.
Step 2

. Develop e mission s reduction estimates

. Emissions reductions estimates were developed for the CAA s ection 108(f) categories to
assess the list of potential RACM identified in Step 1. The methodology used to estimated reductions is described in Appendix C of the 2007 Ozone Plan. In developing these estimates, the MPOs used assumptions that maximized the potential VMT and NO
x 

### reduction from each measure. Examples of these assumptions are given on p. 9

- 5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The t otal
maximum reduction in NO
x 

### emissions that could be achieved from implementing all the TCM

w ere estimated to be approximately 7 t pd in 2020 and 5 tpd in 2023

. See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9

- 6.
Step 3

. Compare t he potential emission s reduction s against the reductions needed to advance attainment by one year.

The MPOs used three methods to estimate the reductions needed to advance attainment by one year

. The lowest estimate ca me from determi ning the NO
x 

### reductions required to achieve a 1 ppb decrease in ozone (i.e., the smallest change that is measurable at design monitors). The isopleths for the Arvin and Fresno

- Sierra Sky Park monitors show that an 8.8 tpd reduction in
NO
x 

### will be required to achieve a 1 ppb decrease in ozone concentrations at those monitoring
sites

. 36



### Given that the maximum feasible NO
x 

### reductions from potential local RACM were 5 tpd in 2023, the MPOs concluded that combination of local RACM w ould not advance attainment by

a full year and therefore no further efforts to adopt local commitments for the Plan we re
necessary. Based on the above analysis, the MPOs determined that there were no additional local
RACM , beyond those measures already adopted , that would advance attain ment of the 8

- hour
ozone standard in the SJV and thus no additional adoption of measures was necessary

. See 200 7 Ozone Pl an, p. 9

- 7

. The eight MPOs did commit to adopt a CMAQ policy that includes developing a standardized process across the Valley for distributing , beginning in FY2011, 20 percent of the CMAQ funds to projects that meet a minimum cost

- effectiveness

. This policy , which h as now

36 A 1 ppb decrease in ambient ozone levels, given the projected ozone level in 2023 with exi sting

measures, would not necessarily be sufficient to advance attainment by one year.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 48 

### been adopted, focuses on achieving the most cost

- effective emission s reductions, while maintaining flexibility to meet local needs. Id

.

c

. State’s RACM Analysis
CARB describes its proposed strategy to reduce emissions from sources within its jurisdiction

– on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, fuels, and consumer products

– in Chapter 3 of the 2007 State Strategy. California has unique authority under the CAA to adopt standards for most categories of on

- and off

- road engines and vehicles, subject in most instances only to a waiver by EPA under CAA section 209.
CARB developed its proposed statewide strategy after a p ublic consultation process to identify potential SIP measures. This process is described in the 200 7 Ozone Plan

, p. 9

- 10 . It included a SIP Symposium in October 2006 and a workshop in November 2006 to discuss development of potential control concepts for meeting the federal 8

- hour ozone and PM 2.5 

### standards. 37 

### CARB made available a draft of the 2007 State Strategy for public review in April 2007 and then conducted a series of public workshops on the draft. On April 26, 2007,
C ARB staff released a revised dra ft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes based on further staff analysis and public comments

. See CARB Resolution 0 7

- 28, p. 3.
From this process, CARB identified and committed to develop 15 new defined measures to address California‘s oz one and PM 2.5 

### nonattainment problem. 2007 State Strategy, p. 65 and CARB Resolution 7

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8. These measures focused on cleaning up the in

- use (―legacy‖) fleet as well as increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a number of engine categories and further reductions from motor vehicle fuels and consumer products. M any, if not most of these measures

, we re being proposed for adopt ion for the first time anywhere in
the nation. They buil t on CARB‘s already extensive existing program to address emis sions of
NO
x 

### , and VOC from all types of mobile sources, through both regulations and incentive

programs , as well as from fuels and consumer products. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38

. Table C

2 lists these measures and their expected action and implementatio n schedule as initially adopted in September 2007. These measures also include one additional measure each from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Since 2007, CARB has updated its expected acti on and implementation dates for a number of its

measures. Table C

- 3 provides the list of these measures as updated in the 2011 Progress Report
and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

.

37 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 w ww.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/ 2007sip.htm.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 49 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 2 

## 2007 State Strategy Defined Measures Schedule for Consideration September 2007

Defined State Measure Expected Adoption Expected Implementation

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007

- 2008 By 2010

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2008

- 2014 2008

- 2014

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 Phase

- in starting 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2008 2010

- 2015

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008 Phase

- in starting 2010

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 2007 Engines: 2009 Fuel: 2007

- 2010

Engines: Phase

- in starting

2010

Port Truck Modernization 2007

- 2008 2008

- 2020

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner
Line

- Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2007

- 2008 Starting in 2012

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 2009

- 2018

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007 Phase

- in starting 2008

Cleaner In

- Use Agricultural Equipment 2009 Phase

- in starting 2014

New Emissions Standards for
Recreational Boats 2009

- 2010 2012

- 2013

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards By 2010 2012

- 2015

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage Tanks 2007 Phase

- in starting 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards By 2010 2010

- 2012

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2007

- 2008

2010

- 2012 By 2010 By 2012

- 2014

Pesticides Regulation (DPR) 2008 2008

Source: CARB Resol ution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 50 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 3 

## Updated 2007 State Strategy: Ozone SIP Measures

July 2011

Defined State Measure Action

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007

- 200 9

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007

Cleaner In

- U se Heavy Duty Trucks 200 7, 2008, 2010

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007

- 2008

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels Fuel: 200 8

- 2011 Engines: 200 8

Port Truck Modernization 200 7, 2008, 2010

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 200 8

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007 , 2010

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment 2007 , 2010

Clea n er In

- Use Agricultural Equipment 2013

New Emissions Standards for Recreational Boats Expected 2013

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards Expected 2013

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage
Tanks 2008

Additional Evaporative Emissions Standards 2009 Expected 2013

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2008, 2008, 2011

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 2008 , 2009

Source: 2011 Progress Report, Table 1 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , p. A

- 7.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 51 

### 3. Evaluation and Conclusion s

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 techn ologically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV. The process and the criteria the District used to select certain measures and reje ct 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 General Preamble at 13560 and Seitz memo.
Because the SJV is designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s , CAA section s 182(b)(2) and (f) require the implementation of RACT for all major sources of VOC or NO
x 

### and on all VOC sources covered by an EPA

- issue d control techniques guideline document

. California submitted the District‘s revised 8

- hour ozone RACT SIP (adopted Apr il 16, 2009) on June 18, 2009. We have partially approve d and partially disapprove d this RACT SIP based on our determin ation that the RACT SIP does not adequately demonstrate compliance with section 182 RACT requirements for seven source categories. See Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Availa ble Control Technology for Ozone; Final rule

, signed December 15, 2011. 38 

### Ta ble C

- 4 A 

### below list s SJV District rules that cover ing these seven categories. Six of these seven source categories emit VOC emissions, only one, solid fuel

- fired boilers, emits NO
x 

### .

T ABLE 

### C

- 4 A



## SJV District Rules that Have Not Been Found to Meet the CAA Section 182(b)(2) RACT Requirement

District Rule Pollutant Cite for EPA Action /Comments

Rule 4352

– Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters NO
x 

### 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010)

. Revisions scheduled for adoption by SJVUAPCD in December 2011.

Rule 4402

– Crude Oil Production Sumps VOC 76 FR 298 (January 4, 2011) . Revisions scheduled for adoption by SJVUAPCD in December 2011.

Rule 4694

– Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks VOC Amendments adopted August 18, 2011 and submitted November 18, 2011

Rule 4625

– Wastewater Separators VOC 76 FR 298 (January 4, 2011) . Revisions
schedule d for adoption by SJVUAPCD in December 2011

.

38 We proposed this action on September 9, 2011 at 76 FR 55842.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 52 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 4 A 

## SJV District Rules that Have Not Been Found to Meet the CAA Section 182(b)(2) RACT Requirement

District Rule Pollutant Cite for EPA Action /Comments

Rule 4682

– Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Manufacturing VOC Proposed: 76 FR 41745 (July 15, 2011). Revisions scheduled for adoption by SJVUAPCD in December, 2011.

Rule 4566

– Organic Material Composting Operations VOC Rule adopted August 18 , 2011

– not yet submitted

Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Regulations VOC California Department of Pesticide Regulation

– submitted August 2, 2011

Source : Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementati on Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone; Final rule, signed December 15, 2011

.



### During the comment period on our proposed approval of the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, we received suggestions on additional p otential RACM. See letter, Brent Newell, General Counsel, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, October 17 , 2011, ―Comments on Proposed Approval of San Joaquin Valley Attainment Plan for 1997 Ozone Standard; Docket
No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0589)

. ‖ These commenter

- suggested RACM are listed in Table C

- 4 B 

### below.

T ABLE 

### C

- 4 B 

## Commenter

- Suggested Potential RACM for the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

Measures Pollutant Applicable District Rule/Comments

Open burning controls VOC/ NO
x 

### Rule 4301. Commenter ma de no specific suggestion for additional re duction s.

Tighter glass melting standards NO
x 

### Rule 435 4. Commenter ma de no specific suggestion for additional reductions.
Improved solid

- fuel fired boiler
standards NO
x 

### Rule 4352. Commenter ma de no specific suggestion for additional reductions.

Tighter animal feeding controls VOC Rule 4570. Commenter ma de no specific suggestion for additional reductions.

Advanced boiler controls including conversion from coal to natural gas NO
x 

### Rule 4320. Other than converting coal

- fired
boilers to natural gas, the commenter ma de no other specific suggestions for additional reductions.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 53 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 4 B 

## Commenter

- Suggested Potential RACM for the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

Measures Pollutant Applicable District Rule/Comments

Expansion of retrofit controls to

non

- major sources VOC/NO
x 

### Unknown. Commenter does not identify
either retrofit controls or the sources

. 39



### Eliminat ing the use of pre

baseline emissions reductions credits in the new source review program VOC/NO
x 

### Rules 2021/2031

.

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 measures can advance attainment of the relevant standard by one year or more , which in this case is from 2023 to 2022

. 40 

### Thus to determine if the SJV Ozone SIP meets this stat utory requirement, we evaluated whether implementation of the potential RACM (including any missing section 182 RACT controls) will expedite attainment.

Attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV depends on significant reductions in NO
x 

### from new technologies. Air quality modeling shows that no level of VOC reductions will bring about attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard in the SJV absent these NO
x 

### reductions and no reasonable level of VOC reductions will expedite attainment absent sig nificant
NO
x 

### reductions. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 3.
Specifically, we evaluated whether the potential additional reductions from requiring
RACT

- level controls on major source solid fuel

- fired boilers in the SJV in combination with
other commenter

- sugge sted potential RACM/RACT (including prohibiting the use of pre

baseline emissions reductions credits as discussed in section III.C. below) and all currently
uncredited controls , would provide sufficient additional reductions in 2023 to attain by June 15,
2 024 without reliance on the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology provision

. 41 

### We used 2023 rather than 2022 because more information is available on projected controlled emissions levels in that year. Fleet turnover from existing mobile source measures will reduce NO
x 

### emissions in

39 This commenter also assert ed that neither EPA or the District had evaluated whether it was reasonable to the appl y emissions controls to non

- major sources (that is, to sources that do not emit or have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons per year of either VOC or NO
x ). As we discuss in our response to this comment, almost all of
the District prohibitory rules alr eady apply to emissions units or emissions

- generating activities at non

- major

sources and that the limits in these rules do not vary based on the size of the source at which these units or activities
are located

. See section III.B. of this TSD.

40 As an ex treme ozone nonattainment area, SJV‘s statutory attainment date is June 15, 2024. In order to attain by that date, the area must have all reductions needed for attainment in place by 2023. Thus, to advance attainment by one year, we must advance the needed emissions reductions by one year.

41 As an extreme ozone nonattainment area, SJV‘s statutory attainment date is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15, 2024. See CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR § 51.903(a). The SIP as
submitted demonst rates that the most expeditious attainment date is June 15, 2024. See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 11

- 1. I n order to attain by that date, the area must have all reductions needed for attainment in place by 2023. Thus, to advance attainment by one year, all reductio ns needed for attainment must be in place by 2022.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 54 

### the SJV by approximately 10 tpd between 2022 and 2023. If additional RACM measures could not provide sufficient reductions in 2023, they will not be able to provide sufficient emissions reductions in 2022 both to compensate for the reductions lost from fleet turnover in 2022 and to attain.

As shown in T able C

- 5 below, even with additional measures on source categories for which we have not yet approved RACT and measures recommended by the commenters, 2023
NO
x 

### emissions level in the SJV would still be well above the level needed for attainment. We, therefore, conclude that the SJV 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP provides for RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).
Based on our review of these RACM analyses, the District‘s and California‘s a dopted rules as well as their commitments to adopt and implement controls, and our analysis of the impact of implementing other identified potential RACM, we find that there are, at this time, no additional reasonably available control measures that would advance attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV . Therefore, we find the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, together with the
200 7 State Strategy, provides for the implementation of RACM and approve them as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)( 1).
This finding under CAA section 172(c)(1) does not affect the District‘s continuing obligation under CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) and 40 CFR § 51. 905(a)(1)(ii ) to implement RACT on all major sources and all CTG source categories.

Public Comments Rec eived on the Proposed Approval of the RACM Demonstration
In response to our proposed approval of the RACM demonstration, w e received

comment s objecting to EPA‘s general policy on RACM and its application to extreme area SIPs that rely in part on the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology provisions to demonstrate attainment. We also received co mments that object ed to EPA‘s proposed conclusion that the process the District used to identify RACM followed EPA‘s policy and to the District‘s procedures for determining economic feasibility and asserting that the District failed to evaluate
controls for non

- major source s

. The commenter suggested six additional control measures which we evaluated

. We have summarized these comments and provided our responses to them in section III. B. of this TSD. No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the SJV
2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP compl ies with the CAA section 172(c)(1) requirement for RACM

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 55 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 5 

## Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing Additional Potential RACM on Expeditious Attainment of
the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

Comment NO
x 

### in tpd
2023

A Projected 2023 emissions levels with controls adopted prior to
2011. From TSD, Table A

- 3. 195

B Eliminate all emissions from solid
fuel

- fired boilers (including coal

fired boilers). Solid fuel

- fired boilers are projected to emit 4.7 tpd of NO
x 

### in 2020. Data from CARB‘s on

- line CEPAM: 2009 Almanac at http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2009.php. EPA does not consider eliminating all emissions from solid

- fuel fired boilers either technologically or economically feasible. - 5

C Potential emissions reductions from TCM. See discussion in TSD section II.C.2.b. Potential reductions are very likely overestimated. - 5

D Reductions from currently non

creditable measures (Rule 9510 and Rule 4702). Reductions from Rule 9510 are currently not creditable. See 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 1 

### Reduction s estimate from 2007 Ozone Plan,
Table B

- 1. Rule 4702 (revised August 18, 2011) has not yet been approved by EPA but will reduce emissions in 2023. Reductions
estimate from SJVUAPCD , St aff Report on Rule 4702 (August 18, 2011) - 2.5

E Remaining enforceable commitments. Calculated by subtracting from CARB‘s 2023 commitment of 46 tpd
NO
x 

### (Table D

- 6), the adjustment to baseline from State & federal
sources on Table D

- 8 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from creditable State measures on Table D

- 10 (19.8 tpd) - 4.7

F Additional controls for open burning. District Rule 4103 requires all technologically and economically feasible measures. See ― Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley ; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone;‖ Final rule

, signed December 15 , 2011

. 0.0TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 56 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 5 

## Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing Additional Potential RACM on Expeditious Attainment of
the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

Comment NO
x 

### in tpd
2023

G Additional controls for glass melting furnaces District Rule 4354 requires all measures that are technologically and economically feasible for the SJV

. See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011) (final rule approving Rule 4354 as satisfying CAA section 182 RACT) 0

H Reductions from advanced boiler
controls EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate potential
emissions reduction s. 0

I Expansion of retrofit controls to

non

- major sources Commenter provided insufficient information for EPA to estimate potential emissions reduction s. 0

J Eliminating the use of pre

- baseline
emissions reduction credits in the new source review program From 2007 Ozone Plan, p. D

- 3. EPA has not concluded that prohibiting the use of pre

- baseline ERCs is reasonable. - 20.5

K Emissions level with additional

measures Line A plus lines B through J 157

L Target emissions level for
attainment From TSD, Table F

- 4. 141

M Shortfall in emissions reductions needed for attainment in 2023 (without reductions from new technology measures) Line K

– Line L 16

N Additional reductions needed to advance attainment to 2022 Reductions from fleet turnover expected to occur between 2022 and
2023 10

O Shortfall in emissions reductions needed for attainment in 2022 (without reductions from new Line K + Line N 26TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 57 

### T ABLE 

### C

- 5 

## Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing Additional Potential RACM on Expeditious Attainment of
the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

Comment NO
x 

### in tpd
2023 technology measures)

1 Reductions from Rule 4320 are also not creditable. These reductions, however, are already included in line ATSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 58 

## D . Control Strategy

1. Requirements for Control Strategies

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 all contr ol 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 preceding a nonattainment area‘s attainment da te. 40 CFR § 51. 900 ( g ).

In most instances, a nonattainment plan should include the adopted measures it relies on
to demonstrate attainment and RFP and/ or meet other CAA requirement or should identify the adopted measures it relies on that are already SIP a pproved, federally promulgated, or otherwise SIP creditable

. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of
enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. It believes that the CAA allows approval of suc h enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy requirement when they are limited in scope. The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6), given above, is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ―means or techniques‖ that
EPA d etermines are ―necessary or appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the express allowance for ―schedules and timetables‖ demonstrates that Co ngress understood that all required controls might not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.
Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA and citizens under, respectively, CAA sections 113 and 304. In t he past, EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions against states that failed to comply with them: s ee , e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean , 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons. , 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian , 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist.

, No. CV 97

- 6916

- HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA section 179(a)(4), which starts an 18

- month period for the state to correct the non

implem entation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.
Congress recognized that extreme ozone nonattainment areas may have to rely on new or improved technologies to achieve the emissions reductions needed for attainment and RFP. CAA section 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve an extreme area plan and attainment demonstration that anticipate development of new control technologies or improvement of existing control technologies. This new technology provision is described further in section II.E of this TSD.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 59 

### 2. Contr ol Strategy in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

For the purposes of evaluating the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP and revised 2007 State Strategy, we have divided the measures relied on in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and to meet
the RACM and contingency measure s requiremen ts into two categories: baseline measures and control strategy measures

. As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, S tate, and D istrict rules and regulations adopted prior to 2007 (i.e., prior to the development of the 2007 Ozone Plan and State Strategy) that continue to generate emissions reductions through to the attainment year of
20 23 and beyond . 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1

. Reductions from these measures are incorporated into the bas eline inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These measures provide the majority of emissions reductions needed to attain the 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

. See Table F

- 1 in this TSD

. Control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, and commitments that provide the additional increment of emission s reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM/RACT, and/or provide for contingency measures.
We evaluate the control strategy me asures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in the Appendices A and B to this TSD.

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and implementing 1 9 new control measures for VOC or NO
x 

### . See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6

- 1 (revised December 18, 2008 ) and SJV U APCD Governing Bo ard Resolution 07

- 04

- 011a , p. 6 . In Table D

- 1 below, we list these measures, which mostly involve strengthening existing District rules, along with their anticipated and actual adoption dates, anticipated and actual final compliance dates, and anticipated and actual initial implementation dates. As can be seen from
Table D

- 1, the District has met its rulemaking schedule

. R eductions anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the time the 2007 Ozone Plan was adopted are listed in Table D

- 2

. I n Table D

- 3, we give the current SIP submittal and approval status of the measures in th e Plan. In Table D

- 4, we show the emissions reduction s from
the rules as adopted. Actual reductions from each rule, once adopted, often differ from those anticipated in the plan

. In Table D

- 5, we list the emissions reductions from rules that are either approved and therefore are creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations a nd for other CAA

purposes. For a number of potential measures identified during the District‘s RACM analysis

, ins ufficient information was available to evaluate the feasibility of implementing them in the San Joaquin Valley. For these measures, the Distric t developed a schedule for performing feasibili ty studies. See 2007 Ozone Plan, page 6

- 6 and Table 6

- 4. Measures that are identified as being feasible through these studies will be included in future plan updates with schedules and

em issions reduction commitments.
The District also developed programs to reduce emissions through incentive programs and innovative strategies and programs. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 60 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 1 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule
Number Adoption Date Earliest Compliance Date Reductions Start

Anticipated Actual Anticipated Actual Anticipated Actual

S

- GOV

- 1 Composting Biosolids 4565 1 st Q

- 2007 March 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning (Phase IV) 4103 2 nd Q

– 2010 April 2010 2010 2010 2009 2010

S

- SOL

- 11 Solvents

Organic Solvents 4661

3 rd Q

– 200 7 September
2007

2010 2008

2010 2008

Organic Solvent Degreasing 4662 September
2007 2008 2008

Organic Solvent Cleaning 4663 September
2007 2008 2008

S

- COM

- 5 Stationary Gas Turbines 4703 3 rd Q

– 2007 September
2007 2012 2012 2012 2009

S

- IND

- 24 Soil Decontamination 4651 3 rd Q

– 2007 September
2007 2008 2008 NA 2008

S

- IND

- 6 Polystyrene Foam 4682 3 rd Q

– 2007 September
2007 2010 2010 2011 2010

S

- PET

- 1&2 Gasoline Storage &
Transfer 4623

4624 4 th Q

– 2007 December
2007 2009 2009 2009 2009

S

- PET

- 3 Aviation Fuel Storage

— 3 rd Q

– 2007 found
in feasible 2010

— 2010

—

S

- COM

- 1 Large Boilers 4306

4320 3 rd Q

– 2008 October 2008 2012 2012 to 2014 2012 2011

S

- COM

- 2 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3 rd Q

– 2008 October 2008 2012 2010 to 2016 2012 2010TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 61 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 1 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

Measure Number & Description District Rule
Number Adoption Date Earliest Compliance Date Reductions Start

Anticipated Actual Anticipated Actual Anticipated Actual

S

- COM

- 7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3 rd Q

– 2008 October 2008 2009 NO
x limits

– 2014

- 2018 2009 NO
x limits

– 2011

S

- SOL

- 20 Graphic Arts 4607 4 th Q

– 2008 December
2008 2011 2010 2011 2010

S

- COM

- 9 Residential Water Heaters 4902 1 st Q

– 2009 March 2009 Attrition Attrition 2011 2010

S

- GOV

- 5 Composting Green Waste 4566 4 th Q 0 2010 August 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012

S

- IND

- 21 Flares 4311 2 nd Q

– 2009 June 2009 NA (2010) 2011 NA (2010) 2011

S

- IND

- 14 Brandy and Wine Aging 4695 3 rd Q

– 2009 September
2009 NA 2012 NA 2012

S

- SOL

- 1 Architectural Coatings 4601 4 th Q

– 200 9 December
2009 2012 2011 2012 2011

S

- AGR

- 2 CAFO 4570 2 nd Q

– 20 10 October 2010 2011 201 1 2011 201 1

S

- SOL

- 6 Adhesives 4653 3 rd Q

– 2010 September
2010 2012 2011 2012 2011

Source: 200 7 Ozone Plan , Table 6

- 1, revised December 18, 200 8

. Actual information from specific rules.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 62 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 2 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Estimated Emissions Reductions for 200 7 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments (tons per summer day)

NO
x 

### Emissions Reductions

200 8 201 1 201 2 201 4 201 7 20 20 2023

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 1.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.5 3.5 3.4

S

- COM

- 5 S tationary Gas Turbines 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.68

S

- COM

- 1 Large Boilers 0.0 0.0 0.69 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.8

S

- COM

- 2 Medium Boilers 0.0 0.0 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

S

- COM

- 7 Glass Melting Furnaces 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0

S

- COM

- 9 Residential Water Heaters 0.0 0.2 0.25 0.4 0.55 0.7 0.85

S

- IND

- 21 Flares 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Commitment to Total NO
x Reductions 2.3 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2



### VOC Emissions Reductions

200 8 201 1 201 2 201 4 201 7 20 20 2023

S

- GOV

- 1 Composting Biosolids 2 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 1.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7

S

- SOL

- 11 Solvents 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.39 1.46 1.53 1.62

S

- IND

- 24 Soil Decontamination 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

S

- IND

- 6 Polystyrene Foam 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.35

S

- PET

- 1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 0.0 0.9 0.92 0.99 1.03 1.07 1.08TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 63 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 2 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Estimated Emissions Reductions for 200 7 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments (tons per summer day)

S

- PET

- 3 Aviation Fuel Storage 0.0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

S

- SOL

- 20 Graphic Arts 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08

S

- GOV

- 5 Composting Green Waste 0.0 0.0 9 10 10 11 11

S

- IND

- 21 Flares 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

S

- IND

- 14 Brandy and Wine Aging 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

S

- SOL

- 1 Architectural Coatings 0.0 0.0 2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3

S

- AGR

- 2 CAFO 0.0 6.8 6.7 18.9 20.4 21.5 22.9

S

- SOL

- 6 Adhesives 0.0 0.0 0.11 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.15

Commitment to Total VOC Reductions 3.3 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3

Source: 2 00 7 Ozone Plan , Table 6

- 1, revised December 18, 200 8

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 64 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 3 

## Approval and Submittal Status of SJVUAPCD Rules in the 200 7 Ozone Pla n

Rule Status Dates and Citations

Rule 4565 Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations Approved Final approval signed December 13 , 2011

Rule 4103 Open Burning Approved Final approval signed September 30 , 2011

Rule 4661 Organic Solvents Approved 75 FR 24406 (May 5, 2010)

Rule 4662 Org anic Solvent Degreasing Approved 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009)

Rule 4663 Org anic Sol vent . Cleaning Approved 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009)

Rule 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines Approved 74 FR 53888 (October 21, 2009)

Rule 4651 Soil Decontamination Approved 74 FR 52894 (October 15, 2009)

Rule 4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing Proposed for approval 76 FR 41745 (July 15, 2011)

Limited approval/limited disapproval

Rules 4621/4622 Gasoline Storage &
Transfer Approved 74 FR 33397 (July 13, 2009)

S

- PET

- 3 Aviation Fuel Storage

— Found unfeasible

. See SJVUAPCD, ―Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rules 2020, 4621, 4622, and
4624 , December 20, 2007, p. 2.

Rule 4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010)

Rule 4320

- Advanced Emissions Reductions for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (> 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved without
credit 76 FR 16696 ( March 25, 2011 )

Rule 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) Approved 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010)

Rule 4308 Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters (0.075 to < 2 MM Btu/hr) Approved 76 FR 5276 (January 31, 2011)

Rule 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces Approved 76 FR 53640 ( August 29 , 2011)

Rule 4607 Graphic Arts Approved 74 FR 528 94 (October 15, 2009)

Rule 4605 Aerospace Coating Approved 76 FR 70886 (November 16, 2011)

Rule 4902 Residential Water Heaters Approved 75 FR 24408 (May 5, 2010)

Rule 4566 Composting Green Waste Adopted August 18, 2011 New Rule submitted November 18, 2011

Rule 4311 Flares Approved 76 FR 68106 (November 3 , 2011)

Rule 4695 Brandy and Wine Aging Approved 76 FR 47076 (August 4, 2011)

Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings Approved 76 FR 69135 ( November 8 , 2011)

Rule 4570 Confined Animal Facilities Approved Final approval signed December 13 , 2011

Rule 4653 Adhesives Approved Final approval signed November 18, 2011TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 65 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 3 

## Approval and Submittal Status of SJVUAPCD Rules in the 200 7 Ozone Pla n

Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction Submitted New RuleTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 66 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 4 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted 1


### (tons per summer day)

NO x 

### Emissions Reductions

201 1 201 2 201 4 201 7 20 20 2023

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

S

- COM

- 5 S tationary Gas Turbines 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

S

- COM

- 1 Large, M edium and S mall Boilers 0.1 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.8

S

- COM

- 7 Glass Melting Furnaces 1.5 2.2 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.5

S

- COM

- 9 Residential Water Heaters 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0

Employer

- Based Trip Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4

Total NO
x r eductions from r ules as a dopted 3.6 8.4 11.3 11.8 12.6 13.0

Commitment to t otal NO
x r eductions 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2

NO
x r eductions remaining as commitment 0.8

- 2.4

- 5.0

- 4.8

- 4.6

- 5.2

Source: Email, Jessi Fierro, SJVUAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA July 7, 2011 , attachment ―2007 Ozone Plan Emissions Reductions.‖ Reductions
shown are the sum of the reductions listed in the attachment and reductions on Table D

- 2 above.

1 Rules with no estimated reductions or zero reductions are not shown.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 67 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 4

– C O NTINUED 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted 1


### (tons per summer day)

VOC Emissions Reductions

201 1 201 2 201 4 201 7 20 20 2023

S

- GOV

- 1 Composting Biosolids 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 .5

S

- SOL

- 11 Solvents 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.7

S

- IND

- 6 Polystyrene Foam 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

S

- PET

- 1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7

S

- SOL

- 20 Graphic Arts 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

S

- SOL

- 1 Architectural Coatings 0 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2

S

- AGR

- 2 CAFO 20.3 20.7 21.5 22.8 24.1 25.3

S

- SOL

- 6 Adhesives 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9

Employer

- Based Trip Reduction

Total VOC r eductions from r ules as a dopted 34.9 38.3 40.5 42.0 43.9 4 5.8

Commitment to t otal VOC r eductions 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3

VOC r eductions remaining as commitment

- 19.6

- 11.8 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.5

Source: Email, Jessi Fierro, SJVUAPCD to Frances Wicher, EPA July 7, 2011 , attachment ―2007 Ozone Plan Emissions Reductions.‖ (2023 adjustment for open burning should be

- 0.19 and not the

- 2.19 listed on this table). Reductions shown are the sum of the reductions listed in the
attachment and reductions on Table D

- 2 above.

1 Ru les with no estima ted reductions are not shown.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 68 

### Table D

- 5 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Current SIP Creditable Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted (tons per summer day)

NO x 

### Emissions Reductions

201 1 201 2 201 4 201 7 20 20 2023

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

S

- COM

- 5 S tationary Gas Turbines 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

S

- COM

- 1 Large, Medium and Small Boilers 0 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.8

S

- COM

- 7 Glass Melting Furnaces 1.5 2.2 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.5

S

- COM

- 9 Residential Water Heaters 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0

Total SIP Creditable NO
x Reductions from Rules 3.6 6.2 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6

Commitment to t otal NO
x r eductions 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2

NO
x r eductions remaining as commitment 0.8

- 0.2

- 4.0

- 3.3

- 4.0

- 4.6TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 69 

### Table D

- 5

- Continued 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Current SIP Creditable Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted (tons per summer day)

VOC Emissions Reductions

201 1 201 2 201 4 201 7 20 20 2023

S

- GOV

- 1 Composting Biosolids 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.2

S

- AGR

- 1 Open Burning 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

S

- SOL

- 11 Solvents 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.7

S

- IND

- 6 Polystyrene Foam 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

S

- PET

- 1&2 Gasoline Storage & Transfer 3. 8 3.9 4.3 4.4 4. 6 4.7

S

- SOL

- 20 Graphic Arts 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

S

- SOL

- 1 Architectural Coatings 0 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2

S

- AGR

- 2 CAFO 20.3 20.7 21.5 22.8 24.1 25.3

S

- SOL

- 6 Adhesives 1 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9

Total SIP Creditable VOC Reductions from Rules 34.9 37.7 40.5 42.0 43.9 45.4

Commitment to t otal VOC re ductions 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3

VOC r eductions remaining as commitment

- 19.6

- 11.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.9

1 Rule approved between our propos al to approve the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP and our final action.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 70 

### b. CARB Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

CARB‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy consist of three parts:

1. Commitment to achieve emission s reductions by specific dates;
2. Commitment to propose defined new SIP measures; and
3. A long

- term strategy commitment.

See 2007 State Strategy, p. 58 and CARB Resolution 7

- 28, Attachment B, p. 3.

T he 2007 State Strategy i ncludes enforceable commitment s to achieve specific aggregate reductions of NO
x 

### and VOC in the SJV by certain dates. See Table D

- 6 below. The natur e of this commitment is described in the State Strategy as follows:

T he total emissions reduction s 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 emissions reduction s from each of the individual new measures, it is important to note that the commitment of the State Strategy is to achieve the total emissions reduction s necessary to atta in the federal standards, which would be the aggregate of all existing and proposed new measures combined. Therefore, if a particular measure does not get its expected
emissions reduction s, the State still commits to achieving the total aggregate
emissions reduction s, 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 emissions reduction commitments have been ma de 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 CARB ‘s total emissions reduction commitments.

Id.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 71 

### Table D

- 6 

## CARB Commitments to Speci fic Aggregate Emissions Reductions (tons per summer day)

2014 2017 2020 2023 2023
CAA §182(e)(5)

VOC 23

— 1 

### 24 25

— 1



### NO
x 

### 17.1 2 

### 88

- 93 56 46 81

Source: 2007 State Strategy, p. 63 and CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attachment B, p. 6 and the 2009 State Strategy Update, p. 23

. 1 No commitment to VOC reductions in 2017 or to VOC reductions pursuant to CAA §182(e)(5) advanced

tec hnologies provision.

2 As modified in the final approval of the SJV 2008 PM 2.5 SIP, see 76 FR 69896, 69924 (November 9, 2011)

.



### The 2007 State Strategy also includes CARB‘s commitments to propose specific defined

measures. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 62 and CARB Resolution 7

- 28, Attachment B, p. 8 , 2011 Progress Report, Appendix B, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A

- 7 . Table D

- 7 below lists
these defined measures and their current adoption and approval status. As can be seen from this table, t he State has already adopted and EPA has approved or is in the process of granting waivers under CAA section 209 to most of the se measures. The se new measures build on the State‘s already extensive set of adopted measure; a list of which can be found in the 2007 State Strategy ( p. 38 ) and in Appendix A of this TSD.

Table D

- 7 

## 2007 State Strategy Adopted Defined Measures

Current Status

State Measures Expected
A ction Year Current Status

Smog Check Improvements 2007

- 200 9 Elements a pproved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010) 42


### Expanded Vehicle
Retirement (AB 118) 2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010.

42 California A ssembly B ill 2289 , passed in 2010, requir es the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct older vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and certification effective 2013. Reductions shown for the SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report and this TSD do not include reductions from AB 2289 improvements . CARB Progress Report supplement, attachment 5.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 72 

### Table D

- 7 

## 2007 State Strategy Adopted Defined Measures

Current Status

State Measures Expected
A ction Year Current Status

Modification to
Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010)

Cleaner In

- U se Heavy Duty Trucks (includes Drayage Rule) 2007, 2008

, and 2010 Proposed for approval : 76 FR 40652 (July

11, 2011) . Final rules submitted December 9 and 15, 2011. 1



### 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.

Enhanced Vapor Recovery for Above Ground Storage
Tanks 2008 Adopted June 2007

. Requirements imposed through District Rule 4621

Consumer Products Program (I & II) 2008, 200 9

, 2011 Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 4,

2009 ) ; 76 FR 27613 (May 12, 2011) ; a nd December 7, 2011 (signature date)

Pesticide Regulation (DPR) 2008, 2009 Adopted 2008, revised 2009 and 2011. Submitted October 2009 and August 2011

Source: 2009 State Strategy Update, p.4, 201 1 Progress Report, Table 1, and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A

- 3. Additional information from www.ca.arb.gov

. 1 See letters, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region, December 9, 2011 (submi tting the Drayage Rule) and December 15, 2011 (submitting the Truck Rule).



### Finally, the 2007 State Strategy includes CARB‘s long

- term commitments to achieve the emissions reductions still needed for attainment after the implementation of the defined measur es and the achievement of the specific aggregate emissions reductions. 43 

### See 2007 State Strategy,

p. 66: ―[c]onsistent with section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act, [the 2007 State Strategy] includes long

- term commitments to achieve the last increme nt of emissions reduction s necessary to fully meet attainment goals in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley.‖ When the 2007 State

43 CAA section 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve provisio ns in an extreme area nonattainment area plan which anticipate development of new control technologies or improvement of existing control technologies. We discuss the CAA section 182(e)(5) provision as well as CARB‘s SIP submittals related to it in section II.E.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 73 

### Strategy was submitte d in November 2007, CARB estimated that an additional 81 tpd in NO
x 

### reductions beyond those already ide ntified would be need ed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standards in the San Joaquin Valley. 2007 State Strategy, p. 66

. See also Table D

- 7 above.
The SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007, demonstrates that a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997
8

- hour ozone standard s . A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an attainment target level of 160 tpd NO
x 

### . See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SI P Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NO
x 

### emissions downward by 12 percent. This revision to the base year inventory resulted from changes to inventorying methodologies. See Section II.A. of this TSD.
Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal appr oach for evaluating the impact of these 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 a s the San Joaquin Valley. As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 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.
As part of the technical support for the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB qualitatively evaluated the impact on the attainm ent target of the revision to this base year inventory and concluded that the 160 tpd target remains viable. 44 

### See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

- 9. The 160 tpd target represents a 72 percent reduction off the revised 2002 base year level. CARB also recogni zed, however, that a reduction of up to 75 percent from the revised baseline (an attainment target level of 141.3 tpd) may be necessary to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to achieve all em issions 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, 45 

### we believe that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NO
x 

### emissions level, based on the modeling provided in the Plan as submitted in 2007, provides the best available estimate of the
NO
x 

### reductions needed to reach attainment. In our letter, we recommended that C ARB commit to revising the modeling by a specific date and to commit, in the interim, to achieving a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### 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 emissions reduction s 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 reaffirm ed its commitment to achieve the
emissions reduction s necessary to provide for attainment. CARB has stated that these

44 Fo r reasons discussed in the air quality modeling section of this TSD (Section II.B.), EPA does not fully agree with the assumptions used by CARB in its evaluation

.

45 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Divisions, EPA Region 9 to James Goldste ne, Executive Officer, CARB, July 20, 2011.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 74 

### commitments are sufficient to address the concerns we raised in our comment letter. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1

. EPA notes that the reductions needed to reach a target level of 141 tpd relative to the reductions needed to meet a target level of 160 tpd fall within CARB‘s long

- term measures (new technologies) commitment under CAA section 182(e)(5)

. I n addition to the base year inventory changes, CARB has adjusted future year baseline emissions to reflect methodology changes and improved data. See section II.A.2. of this TSD

. Tables D

- 8 and D

- 9 show original and adjusted baseline emissions inventories for the source

cat egories. Table D

- 10 lists the emissions reductions (from the adjusted baseline emissions inventories) that the State now estimates it will achieve from its measures as adopted or revised.
Table D

- 11 shows the reductions from State measures that are current SIP creditable.

T ABLE 

### D

- 8 

## Original and Adjusted NO
x 

## Baseline Emissions Inventories by Measure (tons per summer day 2023 )

State Measure Orig. Adjusted Change

Smog Check Improvements 24.0 24.8 0.8

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks & Buses 73.1 55.9

- 17.2

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 21.1 21.1 0.0

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 17.7 11.2

- 6.5

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 5.8 5.8 0.0

District Emissions Sources 113 66

- 47.1

All Other State and Federal Emissions Sources 41 42 1.4

Totals: 295 2 2 7

- 68.5

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 75 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 9 

## Original and Adjusted VOC Baseline Emissions Inventories by Measure (tons per summer day 2023 )

State Measure Orig. Adjust ed Change

Smog Check Improvements 33.4 34.7 1.3

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks & Buses 7.9 5.9

- 2.0

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 1.6 1.6 0.0

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 2.7 1.2

- 1.5

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 16.8 16.8 0.0

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicles Standards 12.5 12.5 0.0

Consumer Products Program 29.9 29.9 0.0

Pesticides: DPR Regulation 17.9 19.3 1.4

District Emissions Sources 261 256

- 5.0

All Other State and Federal Emissions Sources 26 26 0.0

Totals: 409 403

- 6.0

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1.



### T ABLE 

### D

- 10 

## Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures

San Joaquin Valley (tons per summer day , 2023 )

State Measures NO
x VOC

Smog Check Improvements 1.0 3.0

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks & Buses 16.9 0.9

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 0.0 0.0

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 1.9 0.2

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 0.0 0.0

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicles Standards

-- 0.0

Consumer Products Program

-- 5.0

Pesticides: DPR Regulation

-- 1.2

Totals: 19.8 10.3

Source: Source: 2009 State Strategy Status Report , p . 6. Only defined measures with VOC and/or
NO
x reductions in the SJV are shown here

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 76 

### T ABLE 

### D

- 11 

## Creditable Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures

San Joaquin Valley (tons per summer day, 2023 )

State Measure NO
x VOC

Smog Check Improvements 1.0 3.0

Cleaner In

- Use Heavy

- Duty Trucks & Buses 16.9 0.9

Accelerated Intro. Of Cleaner Line

- Haul Locomotives 0.0 0.0

Cleaner In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment (>25hp) 1.9 0.2

New Emission Standards for Recreational Boats 0.0 0.0

Expanded Off

- Road Recreational Vehicles Emissions Standards

-- 0.0

Consumer Products Program

-- 5.0

Totals: 19.8 9.1



### 3. Evaluation and Conclusion s

a. Baseline Measures

As shown in Table F

- 1 , the majority of the NO
x 

### emission s reductions and a substantial fraction of the VOC emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8

- hour
ozone standards in the SJV come from baseline measures

. These reductions come from a combination of District and State measures. 46 

### Reductions needed to demonstrate RFP come entirely from baseline and adopt ed control measures. See section II.G

. of this TSD

. In the past two decades, SJV U APCD has adopted (and in many case s revised each rule several times ) more than 7 0 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of either NO
x 

### or VOC including all of the rule adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of its 200 7 Ozone Plan. See Appendix B and Table D

- 1 . These rules include controls for boilers, numerous solvent source categories, oil production and refining operations

, and agricultural sources. The great majority of these rules and rule revisions are currently SIP approved and as such their emissions reductions are fully creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other CAA requirements

. California has adopted standards for many categ ories of on

- and off

- road vehicles and engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of consumer products. The State‘s measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to obtain a waiver of federal pre

- emption under CAA section 209 (―section 209 waiver measure‖ or

46 Reductions in the baseline also come from f ederal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s
national emission s standards for heavy duty diesel trucks ( 66 FR 500 2 (January 18, 2001)) , certain new construction and farm equipment ( Tier 2 and 3 non

- road engines standards, 63 FR 56968 (October, 23, 1998) and Tier 4 diesel

non

- road engine standards, 69 FR 38958 (June 29, 2004)), and locomotives ( 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 1998) and 73
FR 370 96 (June 30, 2008) )

. States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and R F P demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 77 

### ―waiver measure‖) and those for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver (―non

- waiver measure‖). See EPA‘s proposed approval and final approval of the SJV 1

- Hour Ozone Plan at
74 FR 33933, 33938, (July 14, 2009) and 75 FR 10420, 10424 (March 8, 2010). 47



### i

. Section 209 Waiver Measures

A waiver under CAA section 209 is, in general, required for most of California‘s on

- and

non

- road vehicle or engine standards

. Examples of State waiver measures are: low emission vehicle program, heavy duty bus standards, and small off

- road engine standard s

. A list of California‘s waiver measures can be found in Appendix A of this TSD

. California‘s motor vehicle emissions control program predates the first federal statute regulating motor vehicle emissions, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965 (which amended the CAA of 1963)

. In further CAA amendments, referred to as the Air Quality Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90

- 148), Congress allowed the State of California, and only California, a waiver of the Air Quality Act‘s pre

- emption of state emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines because of California‘s pioneering efforts and unique problems

. This was not changed wh en the statute was amended in 1970

. The 1977 amendments to the CAA expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the publ ic welfare.‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)

. So long as California determines that its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines

. See CAA section 209 , su bsections (a) and (b).
As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions s tandards for non

- road vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA ‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically allowed emission s reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are subject to a
section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA
for approval as part of the California SIP

. In this respect

, EPA treated these rules similarly to the federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision

. Since 1990, EPA has treated California non

- road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standa rds as part of the SIP . In so doing, EPA has treated the California non

- road standards similarly to the Federal non

- road standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs.

47 EPA position is also discussed in Brief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Better Arvin, et al. v. U

nited States Environmental Protection Agency, et al

., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 1 0

- 71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33

- 44, a copy of which may be found in the docket for
this rule.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 78 

### Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- roa d and non

- road standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent , independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and quantifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirement s of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, b ased on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.
First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road waiver measures can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)

. See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to Califo rnia‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal non

- road vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California non

- road waiver measure s

. The constraints of the wai ver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sectio ns 110(l) and 193

. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serv ing as an effective backstop to the State

program

. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program.
Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or non

- road standards for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA

program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emission s reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance
on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not
authorized to enforc e California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because they are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification

. As to qu antifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissio ns factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

-TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 79 

### related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newl y

- es tablished emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MOBILE.) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers fr om EPA but accounts for vehicle deterioration and many other factors

. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the relate d EPA rulemakings approving the plan ( See 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. 48 

### T he San Joaquin Valley plan was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions
that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of
EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions m ade through the use of the MOBILE model.

Moreover, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval

process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits th e rules to EPA as part of its waiver request

. When EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. O nce again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as S IP revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Th ird, both types of final actions by
EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions

— may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of A ppeals.

48 EPA‘s historical practice in a llowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Q uality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non

- vehicular (stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer
to herein as waiver meas ures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4

– E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission controls included in title 13, California Administ rative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revis ion submittal. With respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signa ling its intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (Septe mber 26, 1980)

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 80 

### Further statutory support for EPA‘s long

- standing practice is found in CAA section 193. CAA section 193, enacted as part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, is a general savings clause that provides for, among other things, EPA statutory interpretat ions that predate those
amendments to remain in effect so long as not inconsistent with the Act

. At the time it enacted
section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent prior treatment of California‘s motor vehi cle standards inconsistent with the Act . Moreover, where Congress intends state control measures that are otherwise pre

- empted under title II of the Clean Air Act to be incorporated into SIPs, it has required that explicitly. See

, e.g ., section 211(c)(4)(C ) (State fuels regulations), section 211(m) (oxygenated gasoline regulations)

, and
section 246 (centrally fueled fleets). Thus, in section 193, Congress effectively ratified EPA‘s longstanding pre

- 1990 practice of allowing emission s reduction credit for California standards subject to the waiver process notwithstanding the absence of the standards in the SIP itself

. As noted above, under the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress enacted subsection (e) of section 209. In nearly identical l anguage to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection (e) sets forth the federal pre

- emption of state emissions standards for non

- road vehicles or engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre

- emption (with
certai n exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 2 09(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles. Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision
of the statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpret ation with respect to motor vehicle standards is further compelling evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as part of the California SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

- standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatment of California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act

. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of non

- road ve hicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare

. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SI P review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and non

road vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California
faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent

. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not tw o. Even if section 193 did not provide congressional acquiescence as to EPA‘s treatment of the standards, the Act‘s structure, evolution, and provision for the waiver of Federal pre

- emption for California mobile
source emissions standards , as discussed abo ve, support EPA‘s long

- standing interpretation of the CAA to allow California to rely on emissions reduction s resulting from waiver measures in SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.

ii. Non

- waiver measures

These measures i nclude improvements to California‘s inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, SmogCheck

, and cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations

. Generally, the State‘sTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 81 

### baseline non

- waiver measures have been approved by EPA into the SIP and are fully creditable for meeting CAA requirements. See TSD, Appendix A

.

b

. Control Strategy

W e approve the SJVUAPCD's com mitments to achieve specific aggregate e missions reductions of NO
x 

### and VOC by specific years as given in Table 6

- 2 of the 200 7 Ozone Plan. We are not approv ing SJVUAPCD ‘s commitments to adopt and implement specific control measures on the schedule identified in Table 6

- 2 (as amended December 18, 2008) in the 2007 Ozone Plan because, as of August 16, 2011 with the adoption of the Rule 4655, these commitments have all been fulfilled.
We approve CARB's commitments to propose certain defined measures, as given i n Table B

- 1 in 2011 Progress Report, Ap pendix B and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

, Appendix A

- 3.
See Table D

- 7 above. We are also approving CARB‘s commitment to ac hieve the total aggregate emission s reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standards in the SJV as g iven in CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p.
3 , whether th ese reductions are realized from the new measures, alternative control measures, incentive programs, or other emissions decreases in the area

. This commitment is shown in Tabl e D

- 6 above.
The SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007 demonstrates that a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997
8

- hour ozone standard s . A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an attainment target level of 160 tpd NO
x 

### . See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70 . In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NO
x 

### emissions downward by 12 percent. This revision to the base year inventory resulted from changes to inventorying methodologies. See Section II.A. of this TSD.
Both CARB and EPA recognize that the ideal approach for evaluating the impact of these base yea r 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. As part of its 2011 Oz one SIP Revisions, 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 whiche ver comes first

. See CARB Resolution 11

- 22, p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

- 8

. 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 inv entory and concluded that the 160 tpd target remains viable. 49 

### See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

- 9. The 160 tpd target represents a 72 percent reduction off the revised 2002 base year level. CARB, however, also recognized that a 75 percent reduction from t he revised baseline (an attainment target level of 141.3 tpd) is the outside bound of the NO
x 

### reductions needed to attainment the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV and reaffirmed its 2007 State Strategy commitment to

49 For reasons discussed in the air quality modeling section of this TSD (Section II.B.), EPA does not fully agree with the assumptions used by CARB in its evaluation

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP De cember 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 82 

### achieve all emissions reductions t hat 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, we believe that the current model‘s estimate that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NO
x 

### emis sions level provides the best available estimate of the NO
x 

### reductions needed to reach attainment. See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, July 20, 2011. In our letter, we recommended that CARB commit to revising the modeling by a specific date and that, in the interim, it also commit to achieving a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### 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 emissions reduction s needed for attainment of the air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley and the rest of California.

In response, CARB included a c ommit ment to update the 2007 SIP modeling for the SJV to reflect emissions inventory imp rovements and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the emissions reduction necessary to provide for attainment . CARB has stat ed that these commitments are sufficient to address the concerns we raised in our comment letter. See letter, Lynn Terry , CARB, to Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, Aug ust 10, 20 11 submitting supplement information in support of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions.
EPA notes that the reductions needed to reach a target level of 141 tpd relative to the reductions needed to meet a target level of 160 tpd are attributed to CARB‘s long

- term commitment which is discussed in the next section.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 83 

## E. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision

1. Requirements of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision

T he CAA recognizes that ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme may have to rely in part on new or evolving technologies to achieve the emissions reduct ions needed to
demonstrate attainment

. These measures would include those that may anticipate future technological developments or future improvements in existing technology as well as those that may require complex analyses and decision making and coordin ation among a number of government agencies.

CAA s ection 182(e)(5) allows EPA to approve provisions in an extreme area nonattainment area plan which anticipate development of new control technologies, or improvement of existing control technologies and to approve an attainment demonstration based on these provisions. However, before EPA can approve these provisions and the attainment demonstration, the state must demonstrate that :

1. the provisions are not necessary to achieve the incremental reductions requi red during the first 10 years after November 15, 1990; 50 

### 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.

Under section 182(e)(5), t he s tate must submit its contingency measures no later than 3 years before the original long

- term measure s were to have been implemented . These contingency

measures must be adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction wit h other approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions and to attain the ozone
standard by the applicable dates. If EPA determines that the extreme area has failed to achieve an emissions reductions requirement set forth in section 182 (b)(1) or (c)(2) and that such failure is due in whole or part to an inability to fully implement the provisions related to new technologies approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5), the Administrator will require the State to implement the contingency m easures to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the emissions reduction requirements of section 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2). E PA will set a schedule for implementing contingency measures upon making a finding of failure to meet a milestone.

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 numbe r 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 develo pment 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

50 Consistent with provisions in our implementation regulations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we interpret this 10 year timeframe to run from the effective date of designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS , June 15, 2004

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 84 

### periodic emissions reductions required by CAA sections 182(b)(1) or (c)(2) or to attain by the applicable dates. Id.

2. CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technologies Provision in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone
SIP

The 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP demonstrate d that 81 tpd of NO
x 

### reductions from long

- term measures (CARB terminology for the new technologies provisions) are needed in order to attain
the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV by 2024. The District‘s and State‘s long

- term strategies are discussed i n section 11.5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan (pp. 11

- 5 to 11

- 10) and on page
54

- 57 in the 2007 State Strategy. Additional information and updates have been provided by the District in the 2010 Ozone MCR (sections 5 and 6) and the State in the 2009 State Strategy Update (p. 25) and the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions (Appendix A

- 4)

. To determine if existing technologies could provide sufficient emissions reductions for attainment, CARB analyzed whether current and foreseeable mobile source NO
x 

### controls, if fully deployed , would provide sufficient emissions reductions for attainment in the San Joaquin Valley by 2020. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 54. For this analysis, CARB assumed that all passenger cars would be no more than 10 years old, all diesel trucks would meet the 2 010 NO
x 

### standards, all diesel construction and farm equipment would meet the most stringent tier 4 standards, all locomotives would meet U.S. EPA‘s then

- proposed 2017 NO
x 

### standards, and all the new stationary sources measure in the 2007 Ozone Plan would be fully implemented. This fiscally

- unconstrained scenario showed that in 2020 the SJV would still be approximately 35 tpd above its then

- attainment target of 160 tpd of NO
x 

### . I d.
The District also evaluated the impact of accelerating the deployment of the cl eanest

available on

- and off

- road engines through incentive fund grants. The District found that even with an investment of $2.5 billion between 2007 and 2023 a nd no other technolog ical or logistic al constraints, portions of the SJV would still not meet th e 1997 8

- hour ozone standards by 2024 . 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 7. 51



### 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 fede ral transportation funding to support air quality goals. See pp. 56

- 57 of the 2007 State Strategy. It has also provided updates to its list of potential long

- term measures in both the 2009 State Strategy update and the 2011 ozone SIP revision. See 2009 Sta te Strategy Status Report, pp. 25

- 27 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , Appendix A, pp. A

- 8 to A

- 12.
To implement the long

- term strategy, CARB has committed to a process that will help ensure that the long

- term measures are adopted and that reductions are achi eved by the beginning of the last full ozone season before the attainment date. CARB is coordinating a government, private and public effort to establish emission goals for critical mobile and stationary emission source categories. The effort includes peri odic assessment of technology advancement opportunities and updates to the Board and the public regarding new emission control

51 The District included its ―An Action Plan for Reducing Emissions with Incentive Funds‖ as Cha pter 7 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. Sections 7.6 and 7.7 were submitted for informational purposes only and are not intended to become part of the SIP. See p. 7

- 15.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 85 

### opportunities and progress in achieving the long

- term measure reductions. CARB‘s commitment for implementing the long

- term strate gy also includes (a) sharing the results of its efforts to identify emerging emissions reduction opportunities, promising technologies, and the progress made in developing long

- term emissions reduction measures with the public through periodic briefings t o the Board, workshops, conferences, symposia, website postings and other means, (b) working to secure resources in the future for continuing research and development of new technologies, and (c) develop ing schedules for moving from control technology rese arch to implementation. Id.
An initial step in the long

- term strategy was the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA, CARB and the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Districts
commit ting to the develop ment

, testing , and deployment o f new sustainable technologies to accelerate progress in meeting air quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to improve air quality by align ing agency research resources , where possible and appropriate, to evaluate innovative technologies that have the poten tial to reduce emissions, and to develop and assess new monitoring equipment to better measure mobile and stationary source emissions. These agencies also intend to coordinate research efforts with other public and private stakeholders, including
other fed eral departments and agencies and other local and state entities with the goal of using the resources and capacities of a wide sector of government and the business community in projects to develop, demonstrate, and assess new technologies for clean air.

T he agencies involved in the MOA have also established a Clean Air Technology Working Group 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

- 2 7. For the San Joaquin Valley, the focus has been on an area that straddles Kern and Tulare counties, which is impacted by mobile source emissions from the goods movement
corridor of Highway 99 and Interstate 5 and stationary source s from a variety of emissions sources such as energy production facilities, farms, and agricultural processing operations. The

c ity of Bakersfield is within the focus area of the pilot project. Bakersfield has the highest wintertime PM concentrations in the Valley, and the nearby town of Arvin has some of the highest summertime 8

- hour ozone concentrations in the Valley

. Other State programs that may achieve emissions reductions to help meet CARB‘s 182(e)(5) commitment include:

P otential co

- benefits from California‘s climate change programs where State legislation (Assembly Bill 32

– Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32))
aim s to reduce greenhouse g as es (GHG) in 2020 to 1990 levels or by about 30 percent . Reducing emissions from combustion sources is at the core of California‘s AB32 Scoping Plan and is also central to meeting the federal ozone standard. Regulations adopted as part of AB32 will provide emissions reductions that will be incorporated into future air quality plans for ozone and PM 2.5



### . California‘s Air Qual ity Improvement Program (AQIP) is an incentive program administered by CARB to fund clean vehicle and equipment projects, research on biofuels production, and the air quality impact of alternative fuels, as well as workforce training. The program supports the deployment of hybrid and zero

emission vehicles and other advanced technologies today in order to achieve t he large

- scale reductions needed in the future . California‘s large fundingTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 86



### commitment for hybrid truck technology provides emissions benefits today as well as likely enabling heavy

- duty hybrid trucks to become commonplace in the near future through encoura ging production economies of scale. AQIP is also providing vehicle purchaser incentives for zero

- emission s passenger vehicles, plug

- in hybrid cars, electric lawnmowers, and demonstration projects for cleaner marine and locomotive engines.

California‘s annu al research program, which identifies projects and provides funding to help provide timely scientific and technical information needed for State and local air quality control programs. Specifically, this program supports CARB‘s mission to understand air po llution health effects and exposures, develop and implement strategies to reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption, and support the development of technologies and non

- technological strategies that address multiple air quality priorities.

In addition to 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
emissions reduction target based on updated science and (2) identify additional strategies an d implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by the beginning of the 2023

ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , p. A

- 8.

CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s updates and reaffirms 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 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. 52 

### In the 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , CARB reasserts its commitment to ensure that measures are identified no later than 2020 and the emissions reductions are achieved by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision s , Appendix A, p. A

- 8.
In addition, the District is pursuin g 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 award ed 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 emissions reduction technologies. The TAP will consist of an ongoing review of new technology concepts, interagency partnerships, funding for technology advancement programs, and collabor ations to build and expand local capacity for research and development in the SJV. For more information about the SJV TAP, See http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition to the TAP, t he District has established a Regional Energy E fficiency Strategy to support

52 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, dated August 29, 2011.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 87 

### 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 consumpti on in residential, industrial, and institutional settings. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, pp. A

- 11 to A

- 12.

3. Evaluation and Conclusion

CARB and the District have demonstrated a clear need for emissions reduction from new and improved control technologies to reduce air pollution in the SJV. Baseline measures together with the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP‘s adopted control measures and enforceable commitments provi de the majority of the emissions reductions to attain by June 15, 2024. See Table F

- 3. For the balance of the reductions needed for attainment, the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozo ne Plan relies on the State‘s and District‘s long

- term strategy to dev elop and deploy new technologies consistent with CAA section 182(e)( 5 ).
Based on our review of the new technologies provisions in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, we approve the CARB‘s and District‘s long

- term strategy provisions and related commitments in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP under CAA section 182(e)(5). This approval is based on our findings , discussed below, that these provisions 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 techn ology reductions to demonstrate RFP in any milestone year between 2008 and 2020. Already adopted measures provide for the required RFP in each milestone year from 2008 until the attainment year of 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revision, p. A

- 3 and section II.G. of this TSD.
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. See also , letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Director, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 18, 2011. The se 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 C AA section 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.
Both CARB and the District have taken steps to research, demonstrate and deploy technologies for achieving the needed reductions. These steps include establishing a Technology Advancement Progra m and funding incentive programs. Both CARB and the District have made commitments to research, evaluate, adopt and implement long

- term measures as they are identified. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, pp. A

- 8

- A

- 12.
The 2007 State Strategy include s commitments by CARB to develop and submit revisions to the Strategy by no later than 2020 that will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023
emission s reduction target based on updated science and (2) identify additional strategies and implementing agencie s needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A

- 8. The District also intends to make by the end of 2019 the necessary revisions

. See SJVUAPCD Governing Board Resolution 07

- 04

- 11a, April 30, 2007

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 88 

### CARB has also committe d to achieve 81 tpd of NO
x 

### reductions in 2023 through new technology measures approved under section 182(e)(5 ) . We note that the amount and relative proportion of reductions from measures scheduled for long

- term adoption under section 182(e)(5), as compare d to measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for near

term adoption, should clearly decrease in any future SIP update for the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standards and that EPA will not approve a SIP revision for that standard that contains an incre ase 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 near

- term rules have been found to be technologically infeasible or ineffective in achieving the expected emissions reductions.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the CAA Section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provision
We proposed to approve the section 182(e)(5) new technology provision in the SJV 2007
8

- hour Ozone SIP at 76 FR 57846, 578 55 . We rece ived comments objecting to this proposed approval on the basis that the provision failed to meet the requirements and intent of the CAA.
W e have reviewed these comments and find that none cause us to revise our proposed approval
of the new technology provisions in the SIP . A summary of these comment and our complete responses can be found in section III .D. of this TSD.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 89 

## F . Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirement for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section 182 (c) (2)(A) require s st ate s 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 applicable attainment date. Under the ozone implementation rule (40 CFR § 51.908)

, the attainment demonstration is due within three years of the area‘s designation as nonattainment and should include :
(1) t echnical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are c ausing violations of the 8

- hour ozone NAA QS within the nonattainment area ;
( 2 ) adopted measure 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 7 0 FR 71612

, 71615

. The requirements for items 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory, air quality modeling, and R ACM sections of this TSD. Requirements for item 3 are discussed in the contingency measures sections of this TSD

. In this section, we evaluate ho w these items taken together provide for attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley as expeditiously as practicable

.

2. Attainment Demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

The attainment demonstration in the 20 0 7 Ozone Plan is given in Section 11

. 2. and is
summarized in Table F

- 1 below. Table F

- 2 shows the contribution s by the District and CARB to the control strategy.
Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 200 7 Ozone Plan, both CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures in their Strategy/Plan . M any of these

measures have been approved by or submitted to EPA. See Ta bles D

- 3 and D

- 6

. The State has also revised parts of the base year and future year projected baseline emissions inventory to reflect improved methodologies and data as well as to revise the base year from 2006 to 2002

. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. The ef fect of these revisions to the attainment demonstration are shown in Table F

- 3.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 90 

### T ABLE 

### F

- 1 

## Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV‘ s Ozone Attainment Demonstration as Submitted November 2007

(tons per summer day 2023 )

VOC NO
x


### A 200 6 base line emissions level 450 650

B 2023 attainment target level 342 160

C Total reductions needed from 200 6 baseline levels to attain in 2023 108 490

D 2023 baseline emissions level 409 295

E Reductions from baseline measures 41 355

Percent age of reductions needed for attainment from
baseline measures 38 % 72%

F Reductions needed from control strategy measures 67 135

Percent age of reductions needed for attainment from control strategy measures including new technologies 62 % 28%

Source: CARB Staff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Table s 6 (Lines A, B and D) and 14 (Lines C, E, and F).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 91 

### T ABLE 

### F

- 2 

## Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency in the Attainment

Demonstration as Submitted November 2007

(tons per summer day 2023 )

VOC NO
x



### A Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy
measures to attain 108 490

B Total reductions from control strategy measures 67 135

C District commitments/measures 47 9

Percent age of total control strategy reductions from District
commitments 70% 7%

D State commitments 23 46

Percent age of total control strategy reductions from State
commitments 30% 34%

E New technology

– 80 1



### Percent age of total control strategy reductions from new technologies – 59%

Source: CARB Staff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 14

1 CARB‘s commitment is to 81 tpd NO

x reduction from new technologies

. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3 an d 2009 State Strategy Status Report , p. 21.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 92 

### T ABLE 

### F

- 3 

## Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV‘ s Ozone Attainment Demonstration Updated July 2011

(tons per summer day 2023)

VOC NO
x


### A 2002 base year emissions level 457 .5 565 .2

B 2023 attainment target level 342 141 1



### C Total reductions needed from 2002 base year levels to attain in 2023 (A

– B) 115 .5 424 .2

D 2023 remaining emissions (baseline measures and control strategy measures adopted prior to June 2011) 33 8.6 195

Reductions from baseline measures and control strategy measures adopted prior to June 2011 2 

### 118 370

Percent age of reductions needed for attainment from baseline measures and control strategy measures adopted prior to June 2011 103% 87%

Reductions needed from remaining commitments and new technologies 0 54

Percent age of reductions needed from remaining commitments and new technologies 0% 13%

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

- 3.

2 . Represent a 75 percent reduction from 2002 baseyear level. See section F.3.b.

1 Includes State and District measures as adopted whether SIP creditable and non creditable.



### 3. Evaluation and Conclusion s

a

. Enforceable Commitment s in the Attainment Demonstration s A portion of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s in the SJV is in the form of enforceable commitments. We describe these enforceable commitments in section II.C. above.
In most instances, a nonattainment plan should include the adopted measures it relies on
to demonstr ate attainment and RFP and to meet other CAA requirement s or should identify the adopted measures it relies on that are already SIP approved, federally promulgated, or otherwise SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. We believe that the CAA allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy requirement when they are limited in scope. Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant use of an enforceable commitment, EPA considers three factors in determining whether to approve the use of an enforceable commitment to meet CAA requirements : (a) does theTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 93 

### commitment address a limited portion of the statutorily

- required program; (b) is the state capable of fulfilling its commitment; and (c) is the commitment for a reasonable and appropriate period of time. 53



### As shown in Table F

- 4 below, reductions in the projected future year baseline inventory from measures already adopted by the District and State (both prior to and as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan as well as the subsequent 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan) and approved by EPA or otherwise SIP
creditable provide the majority of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of
the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV. The balance is in the form of either enforceable commitments to specific aggregate emissions reductions by the District and CARB and
emissions reductions anticipated from the developmen t of new or improved technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5).

We believe

, with respect to the 2007 SJV 8

- hour Ozone SIP, that circumstances warrant the consideration of enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration for the
SJV. 54 

### As shown in Table F

- 1 above, the majority of NO
x 

### 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 (that is, from the baseline m easures ) . 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 er 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 emiss ions reductions needed for attainment. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix I and 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 5. However, the timeline needed to develop, adopt, and implement these measures went years beyond the November 2007 submittal date of the SJV 8

- hour Ozo ne SIP. T hese circumstances warrant the District‘s and CARB‘s reliance on enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP.
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

.
i. Commitments are a Limited Portion of Required Reductions

For the first fa ctor, we look to see if th e commitment addresses a limited portion of a statutory requirement, such as the amount of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate RFP

53 Th e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application of the three

- factor test in approving enforceable
commitments in the Houston

- Galveston 1

- hour ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA et al.

, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).

54 Based on SIP

- creditable measures adopted to date, the SJV 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP does not re ly 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.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 94 

### 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. 55



### As shown Table D

- 12, the remaining portion of the enforceable commitments, after accounting for approved measures and advanced technology measures, needed to demonstration

att ainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and 4.6 tpd of NO
x 

### (the remaining portion of CARB‘s 2023 NO
x 

### commitment). When compared to the total reductions needed to demonstration attainment, the remaining portion of t he enforceable commitments represents at most 6.7 percent of the needed VOC and 1 .1 percent of the needed
NO
x 

### . Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with enforceable commitments in the range of 10 percent or less. See our approval of the SJV PM 10 

### Plan ( 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004) ) , the SJV
1

- hour ozone plan ( 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010) ) , the Houston

- Galveston 1

- hour ozone SIP ( 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001) ) , approval of the SJV 2007 PM 2.5 

### SIP (7 6 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) ) , and approval of the South Coast PM 2.5 

### SIP ( 76 FR 69928 (November 9, 2011) )

.
ii. The State is Capable of Fulfilling Its Commitment
For the second factor, we consider whether the State and District are capable of fulfilling their commitments.
As discussed above, CARB has adopted and submitted 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 enforce able commitments for the San Joaquin Valley

. The District has already exceeded its commitments for reducing NO
x 

### emissions for the attainment year of 2023

. See Table D

- 4. It also has already adopted rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) that are projected to achieve NO
x 

### reductions in the attainment year. These reductions, however, are not currently creditable to the attainment and RFP demonstrations. In addition, it has adopt ed revisions to District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) that are likel y to achieve substantial NO
x 

### reductions. See SJVUAPCD

, 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 es timated 19 tpd reductions in VOC (in SIP currency) by 2017. See SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed New Rule 4566 (Organic Material Composting Operations) , August 18, 2011, Appendix B, p. B

- 3. Finally, the District is also continuing to wo rk 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 from the on

- and off

- road engine fleets. Reductions from several o f these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment demonstration. See , for example, SJV PM 2.5 

### Progress Report, section 2.3 56

55 CA A section 182 (e)(5) allows EPA to approve an attainment demonstration that relies on reductions from new 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 rema in as commitments.

56 SJV U APCD, 20 11 PM 2.5 Plan Progress Report , Draft March 2011

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 95 

### Given the State's and District‘s efforts to date to reduce emissions, we believe that the State and Distri ct are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to adopt measures to reduce emissions of NO
x 

### and /or VOC to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standards in the San Joaquin Valley by June 15, 2024

.

T ABLE 

### F

- 4 

## Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments based on Approved or Proposed for Approval Measure s

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NO
x 

### VOC

A Revised 2002 baseline emissions level 565.2 457.5

B Attainment target level 141 342

C Total reductions needed from baseline and control strategy measures to attain (A

- B) 423.9 115.5

D Reductions from baseline measures ( A

- Table
D

- 11) 338.6 54.2

E Total reductions from approved measures (Tables D

- 5, D

- 11) 32.4 53.6

F Total reductions remaining as commitments (District and CARB) and, for NO
x 

### , reductions from new technologies (C

- D

- E) 53.2 7.7

G Reductions remaining as CARB enforceable
commitments 1 

### 4.6 5.9

Reductions remaining as District enforceable
commitments 0 1.8

H Total reductions remaining as new technology reductions (CAA section 182(e)(5)) (F

- G) 48.6

--

I Percent age of total reductions needed remaining as commitments not including NO
x 

### , reductions from new technologies 1.1% 6.7%

1 Calculated by subtracting from CARB‘s 2023 46 tpd NO

x commitments (Table D

- 6) the adjustment to baseline
from State & federal sources on Table D

- 8 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from creditable State measures on
Table D

- 10 (19.8 tpd). District has no NO
x emissions reductions remaining as commitments. Se e Table D

- 5.



### iii. The Commitment is for a Reasonable and Appropriate Timeframe

For the third and last factor, we consider whether the commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period of time.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 96 

### In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to th e levels needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards 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 comm itted to by District and CARB have already been achieved and the rules to achieve the few remaining ones are schedule for adoption by 2013, EPA considers these schedules to provide sufficient time to achieve the few remaining reductions needed to attain (w hen considered with the emissions reductions to be provided by the advanced technology provision) by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2024. See Table F

- 4 above. Thus

, we find that the commitments are for a reasonable and appropriate timeframe.

b . 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 i n sect ion s II.A. and II.B., we are approving
the revised emissions inventor y and finding the air quality modeling and projected baseline inventories are adequate to support the attainment demonstration.
Second, we must find that the SIP provides for expedi tious attainment through the implementation of all RACM. A s discussed above in section II. C ., we are approving the RACM demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SI P 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 F

- 4

, the 200 7 8

- hour
Ozone SIP relies principally on adopted and approved/waived rules 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 aggregat e tonnage reductions of VOC

a n d/ or NO
x 

### in the near term from available and identified technologies and commitments to adopt measures to achieve specific aggregate tonnage reductions of NO
x 

### in the long term from the development and deployment of new or improved technologies.
EPA has previously accepted enforceable commitments in lieu of adopted control measures in attainment demonstrations when circumstances warrant ed them and the commitments meet three criteria. As discussed in above, w e proposed 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 demonstrat ed their capability to meet their commitments

, and 3) the
commitment s are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these conclusions, we are approv ing
the enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- hour
Ozone SIP

. CAA s ection 182(e)(5) allows plan s for extreme ozone nonattainment areas to include under certain conditions provisions for the development of new and improved technologies and allows EPA to approve attainment demonstrations based, in part, on th e se provisions

. For the reasons discussed in section II.E., w e find that California has me t the conditions for relying on new technology provisions in its attainment demonstration for the SJV

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 97 

### As discussed above, the SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007, demonstrates that a 75 percent reduction in NO
x 

### emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . Since the adoption of the SJV ozone SIP in 2007, the base year NO
x 

### emissions level has be revised downward by 12 percent due to new inventory methodologies and data. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B. 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 200 7 Ozone Plan would be to perform new air quality modeling but 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 info rmation 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 approv ing this commitment.
EPA believes that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NO
x 

### emissions level from the existing modeling provides the best currently available estimate of the NO
x 

### 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
attainme nt needs of the SJV. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1. As discussed above, CARB‘s commitment to achieving 81 tpd of NO
x 

### emissions reductions from new technologies is sufficient to cover any reductions that may be needed for attainment due to t he changes to the base year inventory.
For the foregoing reasons, we approve the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP

.
Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Attainment Demonstration
We proposed to approve the attainm ent demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP
at 76 FR 57846, 57860 . We received comments asserting that the SIP did not include all RACM, CARB‘s commitments to aggregate emissions reductions were no t approvable, the new technology provision s were not approva b l e , and the attainment demonstration relied on emissions reductions from measures ( e.g., waiver measures) that were not SIP

- creditable . W e have reviewed these comments and find that none cause us to revise our proposed approval of
the attainment d emonstration. A summary of these comment and our complete responses can be found in section III of this TSD.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 98 

## G . Reasonable Further Progress Demonstratio ns

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

CAA s ection 172(c)(2) requires th at 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, p art D] or may reasonably be

req uired by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [ standard ] by the applicable date.‖

CAA s ection 182(b)(1) specifically requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or higher demonstrate a 15 pe rcent reduction in VOC emissions between the years of 1990 and 1996. For ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or higher, CAA

s ection 182(c)(2)(B) also requires the SIPs to demonstrate a three percent per year reduction (averaged over three

- year periods) of ozone precursor emissions from 1997 until attainment

. CAA s ection 182(b)(1)(D) prohibits s tate s from including emissions reductions from pre

- 1990 federal motor vehicle control programs in their RFP

. 57



### The ozone implementation rule interprets the RFP requirements for the purposes of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . It establish es 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 the
1

- hour ozone standard t hat covers the entire 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR § 51. 910 ( d) and 70 FR 71612

, 71615. SJ V has a fully

- approved section 182(b)(1) plan for the 1

- hour ozone standard that covers the current 1997 8

- hour ozone standards nonattainment area. See 62 FR 1150, 1172 (January 8, 1997).

For an area with fully

- approved section 182(b)(1) plan for the 1

- hour ozone standard that cover the current 1997 8

- hour nonattainment area, t he ozone implementation rule requires an RFP plan providing for an average of 3 percent per year of VOC and/or NO
x 

### emissions reductions for (1) the 6

- year period beginning January 1 of the year following the year used for
the b aseline emissions inventory; and (2) all remaining 3

- year periods af ter the fi rst 6

- year period

out to the area's applicable attainment date. 40 CFR § 51.910(a)(1)(i i )(B). Except as specifically provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions reductions from all SIP

- approved

, federally promulgated , or otherwise SIP

- creditable measur es that occur after the base year are creditable for purposes of demonstrating that the RFP targets are met. The implementation rule also sets the base year for RFP calculations as 2002. 40 CFR § 51.910(d)

. 58



### The RFP demonstration must calculate and exclude the non

- creditable reductions from the federal motor vehicle control program as described in CAA section 182(b)(1)(D). The method for calculating the target emissions levels is found in Appendix A to the preamble of the ozone implementation rule. See 70 F R 71612 at 71696.

57 CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) also prohibits inclusion of emissions reductions from certain other measures (e.g., RACT corrections), but these restrictions are of a historic nature and are not applicable to this action.

58 States have the option of using an alternative base year by providing a rationale why it is appropriate to

use a yea r other than 2002 to comply with the CAA‘s RFP provisions. 40 CFR § 51.910(d).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 99 

### 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 standards in the SJV . These submittals are:

1. Chapter 10 in the 2007 Ozone Plan (adopted April 30, 2007) ;

2. Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy (adopted September 27, 2007) ;

3. Enclosure B to the Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 1, 2008 ; and

4. Appendix A of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions (adopted July 21, 2011).

For this rule , we are reviewing the revised RFP demonstration contained in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions . Th is revised demonstration incorporates the inventory revisions described
in sectio n II.A.2. of this TSD as well as reductions from measures that have been adopted since the 2007 Ozone Plan‘s submittal. 59 

### See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions , p. 2. The revised RFP demonstration is shown in Table G

- 1 below.

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

C ARB calc ulated the RFP target levels following the method provided in the ozone implementation rule and preamble. See 40 CFR § 51.910 and 70 FR 71612

, 71631

- 71650. The table provided in the SIP ( reproduced in Table G

- 1 below ) follows CARB‘s standard format for presenting RFP demonstrations

. In Table G

- 2 below, we have modified CARB‘s table to make the calculations easier to follow and to remove reductions from several currently uncreditable District and state r ules from
the RFP calculati ons

. 60 

### We have also r emoved t he contingency reserve. 61 

### We discuss contingency measures in section II. J

. Table G

- 3 gives a description of each line in Table G

- 2.

As shown in Table G

- 2, the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP in each milestone year

. EPA, therefore, approve s the RFP demonstration.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RFP Demonstration
We proposed to appro ve the RFP demonstration in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP at 76 FR
57846

, 57861 . We received no comments on our proposal.

59 CARB refe rs to the inventories that incorporate the revised emissions estimates and control measure reductions as ―remaining emissions.‖ See for example, 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

- 3.

60 Table G

- 2 accurately shows that the pre

- 1990 MVCP non

- creditable reductions become smaller over
time. The CARB table, reproduced in Table G

- 1 implies the opposite

.

61 CARB reserves 3 percent of the adjusted baseline to serve as contingency measures in the milestone

years of 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020 as well as 3 percent in the attainment year of 2023. In CARB‘s calculations, the 3 percent reserve is included once, in 2008, and then carried forward as part of the sum ― Change since 2002 used for ROG substitution in this milestone year, percent ‖ thereby pro viding a 3 percent reserve in each milestone year.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 100 

### T ABLE 

### G

- 1 

## Revis ed RFP Demonstration (tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

Line ROG

A Baseline 457.5 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0

B MVCP a djustment 0.0 12.4 17.8 22.4 25.4 26.4 26.5

C RACT c orrection 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

D Adjusted b aseline in milestone year 457.5 445.1 439.7 435.0 432.0 431.0 431.0

E RFP commitment for reductions from new

measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Future y ear with existing

measures — 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0

G Required p ercent change since previous milestone year compared to 2002 — 18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

H Required percent change
since 2002 — 18% 27% 36% 45% 54% 63%

I Target level

— 365.0 327.2 293.5 264.4 239.7 218.1

J Apparent shortfall

— 42.6 26.9 37.5 64.5 90.9 121

K Apparent shortfall

, percent

— 9.6% 6.1% 8.6% 14.9% 21.1% 28.1%

L Shortfall previous provided by substitution

, percent — 0.0% 9.6% 9.6% 9.6% 14.9% 21.1%

M Actual shortfall, percent

— 9.6%

- 3.4%

- 0.9% 5.4% 6.1% 7.0%

NO
x

N Baseline 565.2 425.4 359.0 307.4 258.8 224.9 194.6

O MVCP a djustment 0.0 16.8 21.2 24.8 26.9 27.8 28.2

P Adjusted 2002 b aseline in milestone year 565.2 548.5 544.1 540.4 538.4 537.4 537.1

Q RFP commitment for
reductions from new

measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

R Change since 2002

— 123.10 185.1 233.0 279.5 312.5 342.5

S Change since 2002 percent — 22.4% 34.0% 43.1% 51.9% 58.1% 63.8%TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 101 

### T ABLE 

### G

- 1 

## Revis ed RFP Demonstration (tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

T R eductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution and contingency through last milestone, percent — 0.0% 12.6% 12.6% 12.6% 17.9% 24.1%

U Reductions since 2002
available for RFP
substitution and contingency in milestone year, percent — 22.4% 21.4% 30.6% 39.4% 40.2% 39.7%

V Change since 2002 used
for ROG substitution in this milestone year, percent — 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 6.1% 7.0%

W Change since 2002 available for contingency in this milestone year, percent — 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

X Change since 2002 surplus after meeting substitution and contingency in this milestone year, percent — 9.9% 21.4% 30.6% 34.0% 34.1% 32.7%

RFP met?

— Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Contingency met?

— Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions , Appendix A, Table A

- 1 (San Joaquin Valley), p. A

- 30TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 102 

### T ABLE 

### G

- 2 

## Revised RFP Demonstration with Uncreditable Reductions Removed

No Contingency Measure Reserve (tons per summer day)

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC

A Baseline 457.5 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0

B1 Currently u ncreditable reductions from Rule 9410 — — — 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4

B2 Currently uncreditable reductions from DPR‘s pesticides element — 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

B3 Currently uncreditable reductions from Rule 4653 1 — 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9

C Baseline with uncreditable reductions removed 457.5 408.8 355.9 333.5 331.0 333.0 341.5

D MVCP a djustment 0.0 12.4 5.4 4.6 3.0 1.0 0.1

E Adjusted b aseline in the milestone year 457.5 445.1 439.7 435.1 432.1 431.1 431.0

F Basis for required RFP reductions — 445.1 359.6 322.6 290.6 263.4 239.6

G Required p ercent change since previous milestone

year — 18% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%

H Target level

— 365.0 327.2 293.6 264.4 239.7 218.1

I Apparent shortfall

— 43.8 28.7 39.9 66.6 93.3 123.4

J Percent a pparent shortfall in VOC , percent — 9.8% 6.5% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6% 28.6%

K Percent s hortfall previous provided by substitution — 0.0% 9.8% 9.6% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6%

L Percent a ctual shortfall

— 9.8%

- 3.3%

- 0.4% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0%

NO
x

M Baseline 565.2 425.4 359.0 307.4 258.8 224.9 194.6

N Uncreditable red uctions from Rule 4320 — 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.5

O Uncreditable red uctions from Rule 9410 — — — 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4

P Baseline with uncreditable reductions removed 565.2 425.5 359.6 309.0 260.3 226.5 196.5

Q MVCP a djustment 0 16.8 4.4 3.6 2.1 0.9 0.4

R Adjusted b aseline in the 565.2 548.4 544.0 540.4 538.3 537.4 537.0TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 103 

### T ABLE 

### G

- 2 

## Revised RFP Demonstration with Uncreditable Reductions Removed

No Contingency Measure Reserve (tons per summer day)

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 milestone year

S Change since 2002 0.0 122.9 184.4 213.4 278.0 310.8 537.0

T Percent Change since 2002 0.0 22.4 % 33.9% 42.8 % 51.5% 57.8 % 6 3. 4 %

U Percent r eductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution through last milestone — 0% 9

. 8 % 9

. 8 % 9. 8 % 1 6.1 % 2 2. 3 %

V Percent r eductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution and contingency in the milestone year — 2 2.4 % 2 4

. 1% 3 3

. 0 % 4 1.8 % 4 1

. 8 % 4 1. 1 %

X Percent c hange since 2002 used for VOC substitution in th e milestone year, percent — 9. 8 % 0.0% 0. 0% 6.2 % 6.2% 7 .0%

Y Percent c hange since 2002 surplus after meeting substitution in the milestone year — 12

. 6 % 2 4

. 1 % 3 3

. 0 % 3 5. 6 % 3 5. 5 % 3 4. 1 %

RFP met?

— Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1 At the time of EPA ‘s proposed approval of 200 7 8

- hour Ozone SIP, we had not yet approved Rule 4653 (Adhesives) . We have now approved the rule and its reductions are no w creditable.



### T ABLE 

### G

- 3 

## Description of the Lines in the RFP Demonstration Calculation in Table G

- 2

Line Title Description

A (VOC) Baseline The total summer season daily VOC emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
in the current milestone year (MSY) . Total includes benefits from control measures adopted prior to the submittal of the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP as well as control strategy me asures adopted prior to submittal of the
2011 Ozone SIP Revisions . It does not include reductions from SJV Rule
9510.

B (1

- 3)

. Currently u ncreditable
reductions from DPR‘s pesticide element and Rule s 941 0 and 9 6 5 3 1 Reductions for the current MSY from District Rule s 9410 and 9 6 5 3 1 and CA DPR pesticide element are included in the B aseline. EPA has not yet proposed approved these rules into the SIP and therefore they are not currently creditable in the RFP demonstration

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 104 

### T ABLE 

### G

- 3 

## Description of the Lines in the RFP Demonstration Calculation in Table G

- 2

Line Title Description

C Baseline with uncreditable
reductions removed The current MSY‘s B aseline (line A) with the current MSY‘s
Unc reditable reductions (line s B 1

- 3 ) removed.

D MVCP Adjustment The reductions from the pre

- 1990 MVCP for on

- road vehicles that must be excluded in the RFP demonstration per CAA section 182(b)(1)(D)

. These nu mbers are calculated using the EMFAC2007 according to a method described in Appendix A of the preamble to the ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71696). Values on Table G

- 2 for this row are
the difference between the current MS Y ‘s adjustment ( l ine B from Table
G

- 1) and the previous MSY ‘ s adjustment ( l ine B from Table G

- 1).

E Adjusted baseline Calculated as the previous MSY‘s adjusted baseline (line E) minus the current MSY‘s MVCP (line D). Except for 2008, this value is us ed in the
calculation of the Apparent shortfall (line I)

.

F Basis for reductions This number is reduced by the R equired percent change since previous MSY (line G) to calculate the T arget VOC level (line H) . In the 20 0 8
MSY , it is the same as the A djusted baseline (line E) . In subsequent MSYs, it is equal to the previous MSY‘s T arget VOC level (line H) minus
the current MSY‘s MVCP adjustment (line D).

G Required percent change since previous milestone

year 40 CFR § 51. 910(a)(1)(ii)(B) requires a 18 percent reduction between
2002 base year and first MSY of 2008 and 9 percent between each subsequent MSY

.

H Target VOC level Level to which VOC emissions in the nonattainment area must be reduced to meet the RFP requirement. The target is calculated as MSY‘s Basis for reductions ( l ine F ) reduced by the Required percentage ( l ine G ).

I A pparent shortfall The current MSY‘s T arget VOC level ( l ine H ) minus the MSY‘s A djusted baseline (line E ).

J Percent a pparent shortfall in VOC, percent The percentage shortfall calculated by dividing the MSY‘s A pparent shortfall ( l ine I ) by the current MSY‘s A djusted baseline ( l ine D ).

K Percent s hortfall previously provided by substitution The percentage of the VOC shortfall addressed by NO
x substitution in previous MSY . This must be accounted for in subsequent MSY to prevent double

- counting reductions

.

L Percent a ctual shortfall The shortfall that must be addressed by NO
x substitution in the current
MSY in order to demonstrate RFP. Calculated as the current M SY‘s Percent apparent shortfall in VOC ( l ine J ) minus the current MSY‘s
Percent shortfall previously provided by substitution ( l ine K ).

M NO
x Baseline The total summer season daily NO
x emissions in the San Joaquin Valley in the current MSY. Total includes benefits from control measures adopted prior to the submittal of the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP as well as control strategy measures adopted prior to submittal of the 2011 Ozone
SIP Rev ision s. It does not include reductions from SJV Rule 9510.

N &
O Uncreditable reductions from Rule 9410 and 4320 Reductions for the current MSY from District Rules 9410 and 4320 are included in the Baseline. EPA has not yet approved Rule 9410 into the SIP and has determined that reductions from Rule 4320 are not currently
creditable.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 105 

### T ABLE 

### G

- 3 

## Description of the Lines in the RFP Demonstration Calculation in Table G

- 2

Line Title Description

P Baseline with uncreditable
reductions removed The current MSY‘s Baseline (line M) with the current MSY‘s Uncreditable reductions (lines N and O) removed.

Q MVCP Adjustment The reductions from the pre

- 1990 MVCP limit for on

- road vehicles that must be excluded in the RFP demonstration per CAA section 182(b)(1)(D). These numbers are calculated using the EMFAC2007 according to a method described in Appendix A of the preamble to the ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71696). Values on Table G

- 2 for this row are the difference between the current MSY‘s adjustment (line O on
Table G

- 1) and the previous MSYs adjustment (line O on Table G

- 1).

R Adjusted NO
x Baseline Baseline emission s with the uncreditable and non

- creditable reductions removed. Used in the calculation of the Percent change since 2002 (line T). C alculated as the previous MSY‘s adjusted baseline (line R ) minus the current MSY‘s MVCP (line Q ).

S Change in NO
x since 2002 Calculated as 2002 Baseline with uncreditable reductions removed (line P for 2002) minus current MSY‘s Adjusted NO

x baseline (line R).

T Percent c hange in NO
x since 2002 P ercentage change in NO
x emissions since 2002. Calculated as the current MSY‘s C hange in NO
x since 2002 (line S) divided by the current MSY‘s adjusted NO
x baseline (line R).

U Percent NO
x reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution through
last milestone year T he cumulative NO
x reductions used for VOC substitution. The NO
x reductions that have previously been used for substitution are no longer
available for substitution. Calculated as the sum of the previous MSY‘s Percent change in NO
x since 2002 used for VOC substitution (line U ) and the previous MSY‘s Change in NO

x sinc e 2002 used for VOC substitution in the milestone year (line V)

V Percent NO
x r eductions since 2002 available for
RFP substitution in milestone year Remaining NO
x reduction s that are available for VOC substitution. Calculated as the current MSY‘s Percent change in NO
x since 2002 (line T) minus the current MSY Percent NO
x reductions since 2002 already used for RFP substitution and contingency through the last milestone year (line U).

X Percent c hange in NO
x since 2002 used for VOC
substitution in this milestone year Equal to the current MSY‘s Percent actual (VOC) shortfall (line L) unless line L is less than 0, then it is equal to 0.

Y Percent c hange since 2002 surplus after meeting
substitution in this milestone year This is the surplus NO
x reduction available this milestone year after providing the cumulative VOC substitutions. Calculated as the current MSY‘s Percent NO

x reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution (line V) minus the current MSY‘s Percent change in NO

x since 2002 us ed for VOC substitution in this milestone year (line X). If this number is greater than zero, the RFP requirements have been met for this milestone

year.

1 At the time of EPA ‘s proposed approval of 200 7 8

- hour Ozone SIP, we had not yet approved Rule 4653 (Adhesives) . We have now approved the rule and its reductions are no w creditable.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 106 

## H. Transportation Control Strategies and Transportation Control Measures to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment

1. Requirements for Transportation Control Strategies and T CM to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT Increases and t o Provide for RFP and Attainment

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as severe or extreme submit transportation control strategies and trans portation control measures (TCM ) sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or the number of vehicle trips, and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the appl icable RFP requirement

. This CAA section 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.‖
EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three required elements of s ection 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth, attainment of the RFP reduction, and attainment of the ozone standard) as separable. EPA has historically interpret ed the first element of 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 13522. 62



### 2. Transportation Control Strategies and T CM to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT
Increases and t o Provide for RFP and Attainment in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

Information in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions reproduced in Table H

- 1 below shows that

on

- road mobile source emissions of VOC and NO
x 

### decline steadily from 20 0 8 to 20 23 . This decline in emissions is due to EPA‘s and Californ ia‘s mobile source programs , California‘s clean fuels and SmogCheck programs, and C ARB‘s in

- use truck and bus rule . As discussed above in section II.D. 3. , these programs are fully creditable for SIP planning purposes in attainment and
R F P demonstrations

, including d emonstrat ing compliance with CAA section 182(d)(1) (A)

. The

on

- road emission s in Table H

- 1 are calculated using EMFAC200 7 , t he most recent EPA

approved mobile source emissions model for California

. As described above in section II.C., the SJV MPO s evaluated a wide variety of transportation control 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 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV. See 200 7 Ozone Plan, Appendix C.

62 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 appr oval 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 Jer sey

- 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 demonstra tion and related provisions ) ; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 2005) ( approval of Atlanta‘s VMT plan )

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 107 

### Table H

- 1 

## On

- Road Motor Vehicle Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
200 8

- 2023 (tons per summer day)

Year 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC 78 66 50 43 39 37

NO
x 

### 229 183 153 115 91 69

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B, page. B

- 3.



### 3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Because VOC and NO
x 

### emissions from on

- road mobile sources decline steadily over the entire time period covered by the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, 63 

### the SIP does not need to include
additional transportation control strategies or TCM to offset growth in emissions from growth in
VMT or vehicle trips ; therefore, we f ind that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP meets the first
element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A )

. 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 requirement to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or the number of vehicle trips

, CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires s tates to adopt transportation control strategies and measures whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasin g. 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 th is case, and EPA has not adopted the court‘s int erpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency‘s petition for rehearing, pending a final decision by the court.

As discussed above in section II.G., we have found that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP provides for RFP consistent with all applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements; therefore, we also approve the SIP as meet ing the second element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A); that is, to include transportation control strategies and TCM as necessary to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement.

As discussed in section s II.C. and II.F. above, we have determined that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP provides for the implementation of all RACM, including all reasonably available transportation control measures and provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8

- hour
ozone standard s . Therefore, we approve th e SIP as meet ing the third elemen t of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) ; that is, to include TCM to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment.

63 CARB only present ed mobile source emissions 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) requirement . T here is nothing to indicate that mobile sources emissions in the SJV are likely t o increase between milestone years before returning
to their historic downward trend in the milestone years

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 108 

### Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A)
Provision
We proposed to appro ve the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) at 76 FR 57846, 5786 3

. We also p roposed in the alternative to disapprove the SIP with respect to the first element (i.e., offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the SIP ‘s failure to include sufficient transportation control strategies and measures to offset the emissions from growth in VM T should the 9 th 

### Circuit den y the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issues its mandate in AIR before we finalized our action. As noted above, th e court has not yet issued its mandate. 64 

### Id

. We received comments objecting to our proposed finding that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP meets all three elements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). We have carefully considered the issues raised by the commenters a nd determined that they do not adversely affect our conclusion that the SIP meets the requirements of this section and is thus approvable . We have fully responded to the comments in section III.E. of this TSD.

64 We also stated in the proposal that i f 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)

. See 76 FR 57846, 5786 3.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 109 

## I. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers

1. Requirement for the Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers

CAA section 182(e)(3) requires that plans for a reas classified as extreme must require each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrial an d commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of NO
x 

### to 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 effectiv e control methods). These requirements must be
submitted in 3 years and be effective 8 years after November 15, 1990. 65



### Further guidance on this requirement is provided in the General Preamble at 13523. According to the General Preamble, boilers should gene rally be considered as any combustion equipment used to produce steam and would generally not include a process heater that transfers heat from combustion gases to process streams , a waste heat recovery boiler that is used to recover sensible heat from the exhaust of process equipment such as a combustion turbine, or a recovery furnace that is used to recover process chemicals. It also does not include b oilers used primarily for residential space and/or water heating

. General Preamble at 13523.
Only boilers that actually emit more than 25 tons per year of NO
x 

### are affected. Emissions vary from year to year, however, making applicability difficult to determine. Boilers with rated heat inputs of greater than 10

- 20 million Btu generally have the pote ntial to exceed the 25

- tons

per

- year limit depending on the fuel type. A source with these high rated heat inputs should therefore be considered affected unless its federally enforceable permit specifically restricts NO
x 

### , emissions below 25 tons per year f rom each boiler. In addition, boilers with rated heat inputs less that 15 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour which are oil

- or gas

- fired may generally be considered not subject to these requirements since it is unlikely that they will exceed the 25 tpy NO
x 

### emiss ion limit. General Preamble at 13524.
We believe the term "catalytic control technology" in CAA section 182(e)(3) was intended generally to refer to selective catalytic reduction (S CR). SCR is a post

- combustion control technology that reduces NO
x 

### reduction s by injecting ammonia into the flue gas, which then passes through layers of catalyst in a reactor.

2. Use of Clean Fuels or Advanced Technology for Boilers Requirements in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

The 2007 Ozone Plan addresses the CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements on page 2

- 9 and concludes that existing District boiler rules meet this CAA requirement:

District Rules 4305, 4306, and 4352 address NO
x 

### emission limits for the boilers in this category. Most of the boilers under Rules 4305 and 4306 are fired on natural gas and therefore satisfy the requirement of paragraph (A) above. Liquid

- fuel fired boilers are also addressed by those rules and the appl icable NO
x 

### emission

65 Consistent with provisions in the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we interpret th e 3

- and 8

- year timeframes to run from the effective date of designation for the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard s , that is, fr om June 15, 2004.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 110 

### limits satisfy the requirement of paragraph (B) above. Solid

- fuel fired boilers are addressed by Rule 4352 and the applicable NO
x 

### emission limits satisfy the requirement of paragraph (B) above.
Therefore, the District already complies w ith this requirement and there is no need to include additional control measures in this plan to satisfy the section of the federal Clean Air Act.
2007 Ozone Plan, p. 2

- 7.

3. Evaluation and Conclusion

SJVUAPCD has adopted 6 rules that control NO
x 

### emission s from boilers that are potentially subject to the requirements in CAA section 182(e)(3). 66



### Rule 4305 ―Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

– Phase 2‖ as revised on August 21, 2003 was approved by EPA on May 18, 2004 (69 FR 28061). It applied to a ny 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 requirements in the rule have now been superseded by those in Rule 4306.
Rule 4306 ―Boilers, Steam Gener ators, and Process Heaters

– Phase 3‖ as revised on October 16, 2008 , 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 p er hour. The NO
x 

### emission limits in the rule, which range from 5 ppm to 30 ppm for gaseous fuels and is 40 ppm for liquid fuels, cannot be achieved without the use of advance control technologies. See ―Alterna tive Control Techniques Document

-- NO
x 

### Emissions from Industrial /Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,‖ Emissions Standards Division, EPA, March 1994 (― 1994 ACT ‖)

. We approved Rule
4306 (revised October 16, 2008) on January 13, 2010 at 75 FR 1715. 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.

Rule 4320 ― Advanced Emission Reduction Option for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5 MMBtu/hr‖ adopted October 15, 2008 imposes more stringent
limits than R ule 4306; however, sources subject to Rule 4320 may opt to pay an annual fee in lieu of meeting these limits. Source s which opt to pay the annual fee under Rule 4320 are still subject to RACT requirements (Section 5.3.3). EPA approved Rule 4320 into the SI P on March 25, 2011 at 76 FR 16696.

Rule 4307 ― Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

– 2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr,‖ as revised on October 16, 2008 , applies to any gaseous fuel

- or liquid fuel

- fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 2.0 MMBtu per hour but less than 5.0 MMBtu per hour. EPA approve Rule 4307 (revised October 16, 2008)

66 We have previously found that the District‘s boiler rules , in combination with the its new source review permitting program, ensure that all existing boilers that emit 25 tpy or more of NO
x or any new or modified boilers
that have the potential to emit 25 tpy of NO
x meet the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(3). See 75 FR 10420, 10434 (March 8, 2010) ( approval of the SJV 2004 Extreme Area 1

- hour Ozone Plan )

. See also 74 FR 33933, 33945 (July 14, 2009) (proposed approve of the SJV 2004 Ozone Plan) . We have also found that boilers subject to the District‘s Rule 4352 ―Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators And Process Heaters,‖ as revised May 18, 2006 also meet the requirements of this section of the CAA. See 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 20 10)

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 111 

### as a SIP revision (and as meeting CAA section 182(b)(1) RACT) into the SIP on January 13,
2010 at 75 FR 1715. On Ma y 19, 2011, the District slightly modified this rule to provide relief for one almond pasteurizer; however, the source is required to fire its boiler exclusively on PUC quality natural gas. See Rule 4307 (amended May 19, 2011), section 5.1.2. See also,
SJV UAPCD , ―Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4307 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heater

– 2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr),‖ April 21, 2011

. Rule 4308 ― Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters

– 0.075 MMBtu/hr to 2.0 MMBtu/hr,‖ as revised on December 17, 2009 , applies to any gaseous fuel or liquid fuel fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat input greater than 0.075 MMBtu per hour but less than 2.0 MMBtu per hour. EPA approve Rule 4308 (revised D ecember 17, 2009) as a SIP revision (and as meeting CAA section 182(b)(1) RACT) into the SIP on January 31, 2011 at 76 FR 5276.
Boiler subject to Rules 4307 and 4308 are too small to have the potential to emit 25 tpy or more of NO
x 

### . An uncontrolled 5.0 MMB tu gas

- or liquid

- fuel boiler would need to emit at a rate of 1.14 lbs of NO
x 

### per MMBtu burned to emit 25 tpy of NO
x 

### (25 tpy x 2000 lb/ton divided by 365 days per year x 24 hours per day x 5 MMBTU/hr). According to Table 4

- 7 in the 1994 ACT, uncontrolled N O
x 

### emissions rates for gas and liquid fuel boilers range fro m 0.06 lb/MMBtu to 0.79 MMBtu.

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 o n solid fuel at a source that has a potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of NO
x 

### or VOC. We approved Rule 4352 into the California SIP on October 1, 2010 ( 75 FR 60623 ) . In that action, we determined
that the District had failed to demonstrate that t he rule provided for the implementation of RACT as required by CAA section 182(b)(2) ; however, we also determined that rule‘s emissions limits were sufficiently stringent to necessitate the use of the advanced technologies required by CAA section 182(e)(3)

. 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

. All of the NO
x 

### emission limits in the revised rul e effectively require operation of Selective Noncatalytic Re duction (SNCR) control systems. We believe SNCR is ― comparably effective ‖ to SCR for the affected sources as discussed below, and thus fulfills s ection 182(e)(3) requirements for these affected sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NO
x 

### emission s reductions

compara ble to combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers.
According to information in the EPA‘s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, recent Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits contain emission s limits for coal

- fired boilers ranging from 0.067 lbs/MMBtu (for large coal

- fired boilers with SCR and low

- NO
x 

### burner technology) to 0.1 lbs/MMBtu (for medium

- sized coal

- fired boilers with SNCR). These limits reflect Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations under the PSD program. According to the 1994 ACT for ICI boilers (Tables 2

- 6), wood

- fired watertube boilers with SCR can achieve N O
x 

### emissions of 0.22 lb/MMBtu. The 1994 ACT does not contain
emission s levels for wood

- fired FBC boilers with SCR but states that this type of unit with
SNCR can achieve NO
x 

### emission limits ranging from 0.03 to 0.20 lb/MMBtu. Additionally, a permitted biomass facility in CA that operates a low temperature SCR has a similar emission limit in its permit as biomass facilities with SNCR (approximately 0.1 lbs/MMBtu ).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 112 

### Our review of these emission ranges indicates that although emission rates can vary according to fuel type and boiler size, general ly SNCR controls are comparably effective to SCR for boilers firing wood (biomass)

, MSW, and many other types of solid fue ls . As a general matter, SNCR is also comparably effective to SCR control for circulating fluidized bed coal

- fired boilers of less than 50 MW electric generation capacity

. For coal

- fired boilers, we f ocused our review on circulating fluidized bed boilers o f less than 50 MW generation capacity because all existing coal

- fired boilers in SJV are of this type and below this size. The emission levels achieved by SNCR control systems are also generally comparable to the uncontrolled NO
x 

### emissions from boilers fir ing clean fuels such as natural gas, which may range fro m 0.07 to 0.45 lb/MMBtu

. 1994 ACT, Table 2.2. SNCR control systems consistently achieve up to 80 percent NO
x 

### emissions reduction s and are compatible with almost all solid fuel

- fired boiler operations, while other controls may in some cases be sensitive to catalyst poisoning and other technical constraints. As to boilers that emit above 25 tpy of NO
x 

### , we note as a practical matter that only existing boilers in SJV are likely to be constrained by the NO
x 

### emission limits in Rule 4352, as all new boilers that potentially emit above 25 tpy and all major modifications at existing boilers will also be subject to the more stringent control technology requirements of the Nonattainment
New Sou r ce Review (NNSR) or PSD permit program s . The requirements of Rule 4352 are generally applicable to this source category and do not supplant any more stringent control requirements that apply on a case

- by

- case basis under the NNSR or PSD permit programs. See 75 FR 60623.
New and modified boilers that will emit or have the potential to emit 25 tpy or more of
NO
x 

### 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 inst all and operate best available control technology/lowest achievable emissions reductions technology. EPA approved Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010).

Based on our review of the emission lim itations in SJVUAPCD ‘s rules and the applicable compliance deadlines , we find that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP meets the require ments of CAA section 182(e)(3)

.
Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the CAA Section 182(e)(3) Provisions

We proposed to find that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP met the req uirements of CAA section 182(e)(3) at 76 FR 57846, 57864. We received no comments on this proposed finding

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 113 

## J. Contingency Measures

1. Requirement s for Contingency Measures

All 8

- hour ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as moderate or above must include in their SIPs contingency measures consistent with CAA 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 attai n 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 attai nment. The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, s pecify a schedule for implementation, and 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

. Contingency measures should be submitted along with the

a ttainme nt demonstration which was due by June 15, 2007 for areas designated in 2004

. See 70 FR 71612, 71651.

Additional guidance on the CAA contingency measure provisions is found in the General
Preamble at 13510

– 13512 and 13520

. The guidance indicates that s tates should adopt and submit contingency measures sufficient to provide a 3 percent emission s reduction from the adjusted
RFP base year

. EPA concludes this level of emissions 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 or R F P requirement.
States may use reductions in either of VOC and NO
x 

### to meet the contingency measure requirement. General Preamble at 13520 , footnote 6 . Stat es may also use a combination of VOC and NO
x 

### redu ctions

. EPA has also provided guidance that contingency measures could be implemented early, i.e., prior to the milestone or attainment date

. 67 

### Consistent 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 measure requirement s . This is because the purpose of contingency measures is to provide extra reductions that are not relied on for R F P or attainment and that will provide continued progress while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet the required milestone or to attain . 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 6 2 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana portion of the Chicago area 15 percent rate of progress 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 7161 2 , 71651.

Furthermore, states can also use f ederal measures that result in additional emission s reductions beyond those need ed for attainment or R F P as contingency measures

. EPA has approved the use of f

ederal measures as part of contingency measures in several actions on 1

-

67 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.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 114 

### hour ozone SI Ps

. See 62 FR 15844 ( April 3, 1997), 62 FR 66279 ( December 18, 1997), 66 FR
30811 ( June 8, 2 001), 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001), and 66 FR 634 ( January 3, 2001).

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 section 182(e)(5). See TSD, section II.E. Such plan provisions may include enforceable commitments to submit, at a
late r 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 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.

2. Contingency Measures in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

The c ontingency measure provision is described in Section 11.6. of the 200 7 Ozone Plan and Appendix D of the 2007 State Strategy as updated on February 1 , 2008

. California revised its contingency measure provisions in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions , Appendix A.
To provide for contingency measures for failure to make RFP, t he SIP relies on surplus
NO
x 

### reductions in the RFP demonstration. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Attachment A, p. A

3. See also Table J

- 1 below and Table G

- 2 in this TSD

. To provide in part for contingency measures for failure to attain, the SIP relies in part on

a dditional incremental emissions reductions resulting from fleet turnover in the 2024

. For SJV, these values are 2 tpd NO
x 

### and less than 0.5 tpd VOC. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Sup plement, Attachment 2. 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 additi on 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). CARB reaffirmed its commitment to submit contingency measures as required by CAA section 182(e)(5) in a November 18, 2011 letter. See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Office r , CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 18, 2011.

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Contingency m easures for failure to make RFP

- As discussed above in section II.G., we are

approv ing the RFP demonstration. As seen in Table J

- 1, there are sufficient excess reductions of
NO
x 

### in each milestone year to provide the 3 percent of adjusted baseline emissions reductions needed to meet the RFP contingency measure requirement.
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 G

- 2 above. As a result, contingency measures for failure to meet the 2008 RFP benchmark will never be triggered and thus are not needed.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 115 

### Contingency measures for failure to attain

– The incremental additional emis sions reductions that will occur in 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, th ese reductions are 2 tpd of NO
x 

### and less than 0.5 tpd of VOC.

B ased on our determin ation that the State has satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for
reliance on the new technologies as part of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- hour
Ozo ne SIP, we approve CARB‘s enforceable commitment to submit no later than 2020, additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) which meet the requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9) . These contingency measures would
be in addition to the contingency measures required should anticipated new technologies approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) d o not achieve planned reductions. 68 

### CARB Resolution
No. 11

- 22 (July 21, 2011) and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Off ice r , CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 18, 2011

. Accordingly, we 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 commi tment to submit by 2020 additional contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 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.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the Contingency Measure Provision
We proposed to approve the contingency measure provisions in the SJV 2007 8

- hour
Ozone SIP as m e e ting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9), 182(c)(9) and 182(e)(5) at 76 FR 57846, 57864. We received no comments on this proposed approval.

68 These contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that an approp riate 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.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 116 

## T ABLE 

## J

- 1 Excess NO
x 

## Reduction s in R FP Demonstration Available for Use as Contingency Measures
SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011

(tons per summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 202 3

NO
x 

### adjusted base year 5 65

. 2 5 65

. 2 5 65

. 2 565.2 565.2
Contingency requirement 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

Percent change in NO emissions since 2002 surplus
after meeting VOC substitution in the MCY (line Y from Table G

- 2) 24.1% 33.0% 35.6% 35.5% 34.1%TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 117 

## K . Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

CAA section 176(c) requires f ederal 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 involv e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit Administration (FT A) funding or approval are subject to EPA‘s transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air qualit y 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 requ ired RFP year or last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate

. Budgets are generally established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors

. Ozone a ttainment and RFP plans should establish budgets for
NO
x 

### 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. Submitted budgets that have not been found to be adequate or approved may not be used in conformity determinations. In o rder for us to find the budget s adequate and approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under a ll pertinent SIP requirements. To meet these requirements, t he budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4)(v).

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP

The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 2007 included budgets for VOC and NO
x 

### for the attainment year of 20 23 and the RFP years of 200 8, 2011, 2014, 2017, a nd 20 20

. See 200 7 Ozone Plan, Section 9.2.3 and Appendix C and CARB Staff Report, Appendix D (updating MVEB for Madera and San Joaquin Counties)

. C ARB submitted updated MVEB for the San Joaquin Valley and their documentation in Appendices A and C, respectively, of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. See Tables K

- 1 and K

- 2 below. The updated MVEB are for NO
x 

### and VOC for the RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017 and
2020 and the attainment year of 2023 . No budgets were includ ed for the RFP year of 2008 because it is no longer applicable as a conformity analysis year. CARB provided additional information in the 2011 Oz one SIP R evisions supplement and in emails from Doug las Ito

, CARB, to Elizabeth Adams , EPA, on August 9 and 11 , 2011

. Table K

- 2 below shows how theTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 118 

### updated MVEBs were calculated. This calculation is described in the Appendix C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. The baseline inventories are the initial SIP on

- road mobile source inventor ies in the Appendix C of the SJV 200 7 Ozone Pl an as submitted in November 2007

. The y continue to be based on same planning assumptions that were used in the initial 2007 Ozone Plan.
The MVEBs are calculated by taking these baseline inventories

, subtracting reductions from certain pre

- Plan measures (― existing measures‖) and reductions from measures adopted after the Plan was adopted as well as measures and other inventory adjustments included in CARB‘s New Heavy Duty Diesel Truck (HDDT) Model (collectively ―new measures‖). The
final MVEB is this result ing total rounded to the next highest tenth of a ton.
Existing measures are:

AB 1493 Green House Gas Standards (NO
x 

### and VOC)

On

- Road Portion of the Carl Moyer Program (NO
x 

### and VOC)

SJVUAPCD ‘s Rule 9310

– School Buses (NO
x 

### only)

New measures are:

SJVUAPCD Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction (NO
x 

### and VOC) Smog Check Improvements (Low pressure evap, cutpoints, light and medium duty diesels, smoke test) (NO
x 

### and VOC) Reformulated Gasoline (VOC only) Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Model (NO
x 

### and VOC)

New HDDT inve ntory HDDT Recession Impacts

HDDT In

- Use Rule Heavy Duty Diesel Truck (HDDT) Chip Reflash

HDDT Public Fleet and Solid Waste Rules HDDT Idling Rules

3. January 8, 2009 Budget Adequacy/Inadequacy Finding

On January 8, 2009 , we notified CARB that we had fou nd the budgets in the 200 7 Ozone Plan for the RFP milestone years 20 11, 2014, and 201 7 adequate and the MVEBs for the RFP milestone years 2008 and 2020 and the attainment year of 20 23 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 7 4 FR 4032 ( January 22, 2009) . Th is adequacy finding is also available at EPA‘s transportation conformity website

, www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm

. We found the b udgets for 2011, 2014 and 2017 adequate for transportation conformity
decisions because they were consistent with the State‘s RFP demonstration s for milestone years 2011, 2014, and 2017 and were based on control measures , with one minor exception, that have already been adopted and implemented. The budgets also me et the other adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5)

. These budgets are currently being used by the MPOs and DOT inTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 119 

### transportation conformity determinations

. Once EPA‘s approval of the revised budgets submitted in August 2011 becomes effective, th ese revised budgets will replace those we found adequate in 2009.

We found the RFP budgets for 2008 inadequate for transportation conformity purposes
because the 2007 Ozone Plan d id not show RFP for the year 2008 and thus the budget did not
meet the transportation conformity rule‘s adequacy criteria that the budge ts when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)).

We found the 2020 and 2023 budgets inadequate beca use they include d estimated
emissions reduction s associated with a number of commitments for future rule adoption that lack specificity. As such, the SJV MPOs would not have be en able to accurately quantify future
emissions reduction s associated with the c ommitments. Therefore, the 2020 and 2023 budgets were not precisely quantified or r elated to the overall emission s inventory and other measures as required by the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) (iii), (iv), and (v)

.

4. Action on the Revise d MVEB

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) and (5). In addition, we post ed the revised budgets on EPA‘s adequacy review web page on September 19, 20 11 and requested public comment by October 19, 2011. We did not receive any comments

. As documented in Table K

- 3 below, we found that they meet each adequacy criterion. As documented in this TSD, w e have completed our detailed review of the 200 7 SJV 8

- hou r Ozone SIP and supplemental submittals including the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and are approv ing the SIP‘s attainment and RFP demonstrations. We have also reviewed the proposed MVEBs submitted with the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and have found that they are consistent with the attainment and RFP demonstrations, were based on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented and meet all other applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including meeting the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and(5)

. Therefore, we are

approv ing the 2011, 2014, 2 017, 2020, and 2023 MVEB as shown in Table K

- 1.
On the effective date of the final approval of these budgets

, the SJV MPOs and the U.S.
DOT will be required to use the revised budgets in tr ansportation conformity determinations. F or these conformity determinations, t he motor vehicle emissions from implementation of the transportation plan should be projected and compared to the budgets at the same level of accuracy as the budgets in the plan , for example emissions should be rounded to the next highest tenth of a ton (e.g.

, 0.1 tpd)

. Also note that due to the nature of these budgets (combining
reductions from control measures related to the in

- use truck and bus rule , some of which may be
inclu ded CARB‘s upcoming revision to the EMFAC model, EMFAC2011) the MPOs will need to show the off

- model emissions reduction s associated with the individual control measures incorporated into the budgets, from CARB, for the appropriate analysis years in future conformity determinations so that they can include these reductions in regional emissions analysis per 40 CFR § 93.122 until EMAFAC2011 is submitted to EPA and EPA approves the model for use in SIP s and transportation conformity determinations

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 120 

### Public Co mments Received on the Proposed Approval of the MVEB
CARB has requested that we limit the durat ion of our approval of the MVEB until the effective date of a future adequacy finding on budgets that replace these budgets

. See letter, Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch; California Air Resources Board, October 17, 2011.

T he transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of budgets. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1). However, w e can only consider a state‘s request to limi t an approval if the request includes the following elements:

an acknowledge ment and explan ation as to why the budgets under consideration have
become outdated or deficient ; a commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update ; and

a r equest t hat EPA limit the duration of its approval to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

See 67 FR 69141 ( November 15, 2002 ) ( limiting our prior approval of MVEB in certain Califor n ia SIPs ).

B ecause CARB‘s request does not include all of these elements

, we cannot address it at this time. Once CARB has adequately addressed them, we intend to propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP and provide th e public an opportunity to comment. 69 

### The duration of the approval of the budgets, however, is not limited until we complete such a rulemaking.

69 CARB‘s letter also requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB approved with the
2008 PM 2.5 Plan. These budgets were also submitted on July 29, 2011 as an appendix to the 2001 Ozone SIP
Revisions.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 121 

### Table K

- 1 

## Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP

as Revised on July 21, 2011 (tons per average summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

County ROG NO
x 

### ROG NO
x 

### ROG NO
x 

### ROG NO
x 

### ROG NO
x


### 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 6.2TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 122 

### Table K

- 2 

## Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP

as Revised on July 21, 2011 (tons per average summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

County ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x

Fresno Baseline

EMFAC2007 15.62 51.87 13.04 40.67 11.18 32.41 9.64. 25.94 9.08 22.89

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10

State Reductions 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

New measures

Local Reductions 0.15 0.05 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.18 0.25 0.15

State Reductions 1.20 15.51 2.10 10.30 1.68 9.42 1.15 7.96 0.88 9.15

Total 14.27 36.17 10.64 29.95 9.29 22.57 8.21 17.69 7.95 13.49

Budget 14.3 36.2 10.7 30.0 9.3 22.6 8.3 17.7 8.0 13.5

Ker n (SJV) Baseline

EMFAC2007 15.76 86.69 13.56 70.77 11.67 55.71 10.36 44.64 9.44 37.62

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.07

State Reductions 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New measures

Local Reductions 0.10 0.04 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.18 0.10

State Reductions 3.01 36.29 3.68 27.76 2.85 23.78 2.01 19.39 1.43 18.86

Total 12.63 50.22 9.66 42.65 8.66 31.60 8.16 25.06 7.83 18.58

Budget 12.7 50.3 9.7 42.7 8.7 31.7 8.2 25.1 7.9 18.6TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 123 

### Table K

- 2 

## Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP

as Revised on July 21, 2011 (tons per average summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

County ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x

Kings Baseline

EMFAC2007 3.34 17.28 2.75 13.53 2.31 10.52 2.00 8.49 1.81 7.29

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02

State Reductions 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New measures

Local Reductions 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02

State Reductions 0.57 6.62 0.69 4.56 0.51 3.83 0.36 3.2 0.26 3.34

Total 2.74 10.62 2.00 8.89 1.76 6.62 1.6 5.24 1.51 3.91

Budget 2.8 10.7 2.1 8.9 1.8 6.7 1.7 5.3 1.6 4.0

Madera Baseline

EMFAC2007 3.68 13.11 0.00 0.01 2.59 8.54 2.28 7.22 2.13 6.49

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02

State Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New measures

Local Reductions 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02

State Reductions 0.36 3.85 0.56 2.8 0.45 2.68 0.34 2.55 0.27 2.92

Total 3.30 9.23 2.43 7.66 2.10 5.79 1.9 4.62 1.81 3.53

Budget 3.4 9.3 2.5 7.7 2.2 5.8 2.0 4.7 1.9 3.6TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 12 4 

### Table K

- 2 

## Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP

as Revised on July 21, 2011 (tons per average summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

County ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x

Mer ced Baseline

EMFAC2007 6.20 31.38 0.00 0.03 4.21 19.24 3.63 15.70 3.32 13.8

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03

State Reductions 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New measures

Local Reductions 0.04 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.05

State Reductions 1.14 11.45 1.33 7.84 1.01 6.72 0.70 5.79 0.53 6.33

Total 5.01 19.85 3.64 16.62 3.13 12.38 2.84 9.82 2.71 7.38

Budget 5.1 19.9 3.7 16.7 3.2 12.4 2.9 9.9 2.8 7.4

San Joaquin Baseline

EMFAC2007 12.13 37.28 3.04 10.53 8.64 23.57 7.49 18.57 7.2 16.67

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.09

State Reductions 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

New measures

Local Reductions 0.12 0.04 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.16 0.22 0.13

State Reductions 0.95 12.57 1.63 9.31 1.27 7.70 0.89 5.94 0.71 6.52

Total 11.06 24.56 8.31 20.42 7.18 15.51 6.36 12.38 6.26 9.92

Budget 11.1 24.6 8.4 20.5 7.2 15.6 6.4 12.4 6.3 10.0TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 125 

### Table K

- 2 

## Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP

as Revised on July 21, 2011 (tons per average summer day)

Year 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

County ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x ROG NO
x

Stanis

laus Baseline

EMFAC2007 9.00 24.06 0.00 0.01 6.5 14.76 5.7 11.86 5.23 10.19

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06

State Reductions 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New measures

Local Reductions 0.09 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.09

State Reductions 0.46 7.15 1.02 4.6 0.81 4.01 0.58 3.34 0.43 3.65

Total 8.45 16.81 6.34 13.86 5.56 10.51 4.96 8.35 4.65 6.39

Budget 8.5 16.9 6.4 13.9 5.6 10.6 5.0 8.4 4.7 6.4

Tulare Baseline

EMFAC2007 9.26 22.41 0.00 0.02 6.7 14.35 5.96 11.88 5.44 10.24

Existing measures

Local Reductions 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05

State Reductions 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

New measures

Local Reductions 0.07 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.07

State Reductions 0.41 6.42 0.99 4.48 0.81 4.09 0.60 3.68 0.46 3.93

Total 8.77 15.90 6.62 13.16 5.79 10.06 5.23 8.05 4.85 6.19

Budget 8.8 16.0 6.7 13.2 5.8 10.1 5.3 8.1 4.9 6.2TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 126 

### Table K

- 3 

## Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion
Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 3.118(e)(4)(i) The plan was endorsed by the

Governor (or designee) and was subject to a public hearing. Y The November 16, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s desi gnee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the plan on June 14, 2007 through a Board Resolution (07

- 20). CARB released the plan on May 15, 2007 and requested public comments by June 13, 2007 or at the public hearing held on June 14, 2007.

The Plan relies on reduction from measures and commitments in the 2007 State Strategy. The November 16, 2007 transmittal letter submitting the 2007 State Strategy was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s designee. Th e transmittal letter indicates that CARB adopted the 2007 State Strategy for the SIP on September 27, 2007. CARB released the 2007 State Strategy on April 26, 2007 and May 7, 2007 and requested public comments by the public hearing held on September 27, 20 07.

CARB updated both the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy in the 2011
Ozone SIP Revisions. The July 29 , 2011 transmittal letter submitting the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions was sent by CARB‘s Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor‘s
de signee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the SIP Revision on July 21, 2011 through a Board Resolution (11

- 22 ). CARB released the plan on June 20, 2011 and requested public comments by July 20, 2011 or at the public hearing he ld on July
21 2011.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 127 

### Table K

- 3 

## Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion
Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) The plan was developed

through consultation with federal, state and local agencies; full implementation plan documentation was provided and EPA‘s stated concerns, if any, were addressed. Y The 2007 Ozone Plan was developed through consultation with the San Joaquin Valley interagency consultation working group (the Model Coordinating Committee). Members of the consultation group include federal, state and local agency including EPA, FHW A, FTA, CARB, C altrans, SJVUAP CD, and each county‘s MPO. The 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and its Appendices A and C which describe the revised MVEB were made available to the MPOs and other agencies for review and comment during the public comment period. EPA received a copy of the, the d raft SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, draft State Strategy, draft 2009 State Strategy Update, and the draft 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. It provided comments on the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. which CARB addressed. CARB also provided additional information supporting the M VEB in CARB 2011 SIP Revision supplement. Furthermore, in response to EPA ‘s questions, CARB provided additional information via an August 10,
2011 letter sent by Lynn Terry . CARB to Deborah Jordan

, EPA and emails from Doug Ito to Elizabeth Adams on August 9 and 11 , 2011

. T he additional technical clarifications on the budgets provided in documents attached with these communications answered EPA‘s questions

.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) The motor vehicle emission

budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified. Y The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified in Appendices A and C of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and further described in Attachment A of the July 29, 2011 letter and the additional technical i nformation provided by CARB . These budgets reflect control measures that were already adopted at the time the CARB adopted the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions on July 21, 2011. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, p. 3. CARB did not update the MVEB for 2008 beca use the 2008 budgets are

no longer needed for any conformity determination in the SJV. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix C.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 128 

### Table K

- 3 

## Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion
Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) The motor vehicle emissions

budget(s), when considered together with all other emission sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress
and attainment. Y EPA has p reliminarily concluded that the revised budgets for the years 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 when conside red together with all other emission sources and c ontrols, are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate RFP for 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . This finding is based on our review of the RFP demonstration in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, as revised on July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.G. of t his TSD, EPA is approv ing the revised RFP demonstration. EPA has concluded that the revised budgets for the year 2023 when considered together with all other emission sources and controls are consistent with the requirement to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . This finding is based on our review of the updated attainment demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, as revised on July 21, 2011. As documented in Section II.F. of this TSD, EPA is

approv ing the revi sed attainment demonstration.

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v) The plan shows a clear

relationship among the emissions budget(s), control
measures and the total emissions inventory. Y The emission inventory for all stationary, area, on

- road mobile, and non

- road mobil e sources, and their relation to control measures and the reductions from existing measures are described in Attachment A of CARB‘s Resolution 07

- 28 dated September 27, 2007 adopting the 2007 State Strategy. The reductions from individual existing measures used in the budgets are also described in more detail in Tables B

- 1 and B

- 2 in Appendix B and i n Table C.9 in Appendix C to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan as well as in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
S upplement , and additional technical information transmitted fro m CARB in their August 10 letter and emails on August 9th and 11 th

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 129 

### Table K

- 3 

## Adequacy Evaluation of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget in the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP as Revised on July 21, 2011

Adequacy Review Criteria (40 CFR part 93) Is Criterion
Satisfied? Reference in SIP Document/Comments

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi) Revisions to previously

submitted control strategy or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to any previous submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins ( See § 93.101 for definition), and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes to emission factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled). Y Prior to su bmittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan, t he most recent ozone SIP for the SJV
nonattainment area was the SJV 2004 1

- Hour Ozone Plan . EPA found the budgets from the
2004 SJV 1

- Hour Ozone Plan to adequate in 2005 (70 FR 7734, February 15, 2005). The
motor vehicle em ission inventories in the 2004 1

- hour ozone SIP are based on the EMFAC2002 motor vehicle emissions model, and motor vehicle emission inventories in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and subsequent updates were prepared using the most recent version of the model, EMF AC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA for use in SIPs and conformity determinations o n January 18, 2008 (73 FR 3464) . This notice approving EMFAC2007 details the basis for the changes to the emission factors.

The MVEB being reviewed here are for the 8

- hou r ozone standard and do not constitute a
revision to the MVEB previously submitted in the 2004 Ozone Pl an because that Plan addressed different ozone standard s

. CARB submitted revisions to the motor vehicle emission budgets in the SJV 2007 Ozone
Plan as part of the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions . The revisions removed some control measures that were included in the prior RFP and attainment budgets (e.g. SJV‘s Indirect Source Rule), included revisions to the Heavy Duty Diesel Truck inventory using CARB ‘s Heavy D uty Truck Model and adjusted the reductions associated with smog check and SJV Rule 9310 to reflect updated VMT data from the SJV MPOs. Emissions reduction s associated with the SJV Trip Reduction Rule were also adjusted to reflect actual reductions.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5) EPA has reviewed the State‘s

compilation of public comments and response to comments that are required to be submitted with any implementation plan. Y The 2007 Ozone Plan contains public comments and the District‘s responses in appendices
G an d L. Specifically, appendix G includes comments and responses from the District ‘s series of Town Hall meetings held from July 26

- 28, 2006. Appendix L includes comments and responses from the District ‘s public workshops and public comment periods on the dra ft 2007 Ozone Plan. Additional verbal comments were received during the adoption public hearings held by the District and CARB and are also included as attachments to the
November 2007 SIP submittal. EPA provided comments on the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions
bu t CARB received no other comments. We have reviewed the compilation of comments and responses and find the responses to be acceptable. No issues that might have affected our adequacy finding remain unanswered.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 130 

## L. Status of 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 nonattainm ent areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley. We briefly describe these provisions and their current status below for information al purposes only.

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with ozone nonatt ainment 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 § 51.351.
On July 1, 2010 at 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 covere d under the federal RFG program. See 40 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 Rule
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 s ection 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 nonattain ment area. See also CAA section 182(e). EPA‘s implementation regulations for
nonattainment new sour ce 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

. See 70 FR 71612 at 71671

- 71684.
EPA approved the SJVUAPCD ‘s new source review rules, Ru les 2201 ―New and Modified Stationary Source Review‖ and Rule 2020 ―Exemptions,‖ into the SJV portion of the California SIP and found that they had been adequately amended to reflect extreme area requirements. See 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010). 70

70 EPA is proposing to approve revis ions to the District‘s new source review regulations. These revisions are intended to remedy deficiencies we identified in our May 2010 limited approval and limited and add NSR requirements for new major sources of PM 2.5 and major modifications at existing major PM2.5 sources. See 76 FR 76112 (December 6, 2011).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 131 

### 4. Clean

- Fu el Vehicle Program

CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 requires California to submit for EPA approval a SIP revision that includes measures to implement the Clean Fuel Fleet Program. CAA s ection 182(c)(4)(B) allows states to ― opt

- out ‖ of the clean

- fuel vehic le 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 clea n fuel fleet program This SIP revision demonstrat ed that is California‘s low

- emissions vehicle program achieved
emissions reduction s 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 s tates 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‖) syst ems 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 l aw (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes CARB,
in cooperation with 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 CA RB‘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 concentrati ons of ozone, NO
x 

### , and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NO
x 

### and VOC.

The SJVUAPCD ‘s Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (June 30, 201 1 ) describes the steps the S tate 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 SJVUAPCD centered around Fresno and Bakersfield . These sites are described on pages 13 and 17 of the monitoring network plan. 71 

### EPA has approved the SJVUAPCD PAMS

Clean Air Act.

71 Starting in 2007, EPA‘s monitoring rules ( See 71 FR 61236), October 17, 2006) required the submittal
of and EPA action on annual monitoring network plans.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 132 

### network. See letter, Matthew Lakin, EPA Region 9 to Scott Nester, SJVUAPCD , November 1,
201 1

.
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 NO
x 

### 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 s

. 72

72 SJVUAPCD submitted Ru le 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. EP A proposed to approve these programs as a revision to the SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 45212 (July 28, 2011).

## III

- Responses to CommentsDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 134 

## List of Comment Letters Received

We received two comment letters in response to our September 16, 2011 propos ed rule to approve the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP at 76 FR 57846. These letters are

1. [ AIR ] Brent Newell, General Counsel , Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, October 17 , 20 11 , ―Comments on Proposed Approval of San Joaquin Valley Attainment Plan for 1997 Ozone Standard; Docket No. EPA

- R0 9

- OAR

- 20 11

- 0 589 )‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) ; Sal vador Partida, Co

- Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Maria Covarruvias, President , Com ité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano ; Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, Earthjustice; Adriano Martinez, Staff Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Kathryn Phillips, Sierra Club California; Emily Schrepf, National Parks Conservation Ass ociation; and Jenny Saklar of Fresno, California and submitted
on behalf of Association of Irritated Residents, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano, Committee for a Better Arvin, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Re sources Defense Council, and Sierra Club
California



### .

2. [CARB] Douglas Ito, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch; California Air Resources Board, October 17, 2011.



## A. Enforceable Commitments

Comment : AIR characterizes CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments to achieve aggregate
emission s reductions in specific years as ―global commitments‖ and argues that they could be interpreted as ―goals‖ unenforceable by citizens under Ninth Circuit precedent rather than enforceable ―strategies‖ to achieve those goals , c iting Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n , 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9 th 

### Cir. 2004) and El Comite Para El Bienstar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9 th 

### Cir . 2008)

. AIR argues that the plans‘ global commitments are not enforceable for two reasons. First,
AIR claims that enforcement is not practical because it is not possible for citizens or EPA to determine whether the CARB and the District have met the glob al commitments . AIR argues further that because no measures are submitted to EPA for inclusion into the SIP citizens have no idea which measures CARB has used to satisfy the total tonnage commitments. AIR also argues that there are no provisions for CARB a nd the District to report to EPA and the public what actions they have taken to comply with the tonnage commitments and thus EPA and citizens are left to determine, based on information exclusively held and maintained by CARB and the District, whether the commitments have in fact been met.
Second, AIR claims that because ―enforcing the global commitment ultimately turns on how the ARB and the District calculate emissions reductions achieved through the measures,‖ CARB‘s and the District‘s emissions reductio n commitments are not enforceable unless the methodology for calculating the reductions is also enforceable. Otherwise, AIR argues, the manner in which CARB and the District determine compliance with the tonnage target is left toDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 135 

### their discretion, and citi zens and EPA would be placed in the situation held by the plaintiffs in Warmerdam

. In conclusion, AIR asserts that the CAA ―does not condone a discretionary commitment and EPA should not approve the ARB‘s latest attempt to achieve a reduction target
based on discretionary actions.‖

Response : U nder CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emission s limitations and other control measures, means or techniques as necessary to meet the requirements of the Act, as well as timetables for compliance

. Similarly, section 172(c)(6) provides that nonattainment area SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and such other control measures, means or techniques ― as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment‖ of the NAAQS by the appli cable attainment date.
Control measures, including commitments in SIPs, are enforced directly by EPA under CAA section 113 and also through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be brought against any person who is alleged ―to be in violat ion of ... an emission standard or limitation....‖ ―Emission standard or limitation‖ is defined in subsection (f) of section 304. As
observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al ., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1 st 

### Cir. 1996):

C ourts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction i s limited to claims "for violations of spec ific provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan," the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to enf orce the NAAQS directly. See , e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613

- 14 . Courts have repeatedly applied this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See , e.g., Coalition Against Columbus Ctr. v. City of New York , 967 F.2d 764, 769

- 71 (2d Cir. 1992) ; Cate v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530

- 32 (W.D. Va. 1995) ; Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454

- 59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 (1990)

. Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provisio n cannot be used to enforce the aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that goal , including enforceable commitments to develop future emissions controls

. W e describe C ARB‘s and the District‘s co mmitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised
in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 Ozone Plan in detail in our propos ed rule

. See 76 FR 57846,
57851

- 57856 and 57857

- 57860. 73 

### The 2007 State Strategy includes commitments to propose

73 The 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions revised the State's emissions estimates for certain source categories and projection years an d provided additional information on the State and District's progress to date in achieving their
total emissions reduction commitments. In this action, w e are approving CARB's and the District 's emission s reduction commitments as submitted in the 2007 State Strategy as updated by the 2009 State Strategy Update and
the 2007 Ozone Plan without change because we do not have sufficient information to determine how the 2011 SIP
Revision alters the State's near

- term and CAA section 182(e)(5) emissions reduction commitments. We note that the amount and relative proportion of reductions from m easures scheduled for adoption under CAA section 182(e)(5), as compared to measures already adopted or scheduled for near

- term adoption, should decrease in any future SIP update

.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 136 

### defined new measures and an enf or ceable commitme nt for emissions reductions sufficient, in combination with existing measures, the District‘s commitments, and the new technology provisions to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV by June 15, 2024. See CARB Resolution 07

- 28, Attach ment B at p p

. 3 and 6 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 2 1

. For the SJV, CARB‘s emissions reductions commitments as submitted in 200 7 and 2009 are to specific reductions of NO
x 

### and VOC in 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 as well as additional reductions from CAA section 182(e)(5) measures in 2023. These commitments are shown in Table 8 of the propos ed rule (76 FR 57846, 57854) and Table D

- 6 of the TSD.

SJVUAPCD‘s commitments as submitted in 2 007 are also to specific reductions of NO
x 

### and VOC in 2008, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 and are shown Table 6

- 1 of the 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised in 2008). These commitments are also shown (for all years except for 2008) on Table 3 of the propos ed rule (76 FR 57846, 5785 2 4) and Table D

- 2 of the TSD

. The language used in the Board‘s resolution adopting the 200 7 8

- hour Ozone Plan at page 5 to describe its commitment is mandatory and unequivocal in nature:

10. The District Governing Board commits to adopt and implement the rules and
measures in the 200 7 Ozone Plan by the dates specified in Chapter 6 to achieve the emissions reductions shown in Chapter 6 , and to submit these rules and measures to the ARB within one month of adoption for transmittal to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan. If the total emission reductions from the adopted rules are less than those committed to in the Plan, the District Governing Board commits to adopt, submit, and implement substitute rules and measures that will achieve equivalent reductions in emissions of ozone precursors in the same adoption and implementation timeframes or in the timeframes needed to meet CAA milestones

. SJVUAPCD Board Resolution No. 07

- 04

- 11a, p. 6

. (E mphasis added).

Thus, C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specif

ic amounts of NO
x 

### and VOC emission s reductions by specific years

. These are not mere aspirational goals to ultimately achieve the s tandards. Rather, the State and District have committed to adopt enforceable measures that will achieve these specific amounts
of emissions reduction s by specified milestone years and ultimately by the attainment year (2023). See 70 FR 71612, 71633 (Novemb er 29, 2005) and 40 CFR § 51. 910(a)(1) and §
51. 908(d) (requiring implementation of all control measures need ed for expeditious attainment no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date). All of these control measures are subject to S tate and local rulemaking procedures and public participation requirements, through which EPA and the public may track the State/District‘s progress in achieving the requisite emissions reductions. EPA and citizens may enforce these commitments under CAA

s ections 113 and 304(a), respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt measures that achieve the requisite amounts of emissions reduction s by each specified year. We conclude that these enforceable commitments to adopt and implement additional contr ol measures to achieve aggregate emissions reduction s on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, technique s , or schedule s for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act

. AIR cite s Bayview as support for their contention that the SIP ‘s commitments are unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. ThatDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 137 

### case involved a provision of the 1982 Bay Area 1

- hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which states in pertinent part:
Support post

- 1983 improvements i dentified in transit operator‘s 5

- year plans, after consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983

- 1987.

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction estimates are predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after consultation with the transit operators.
Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that ―[r]idership increases would come from productivity improvements....‖
Ultimately

, the 15 percent ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently attempted to enforce the 15 percent ridership increase. The court found that the 15 percent ridership increase was an unenfo rceable estimate or goal. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered multiple factors, including the plain language of TCM 2 (e.g., ―[a]greeing to establish a ridership  ̳target‘ is simply not the same as promising to attain that target,‖ Bayview at 698); the logic of TCM 2, i.e ., the drafters of TCM 2 were careful not to characterize any given increase as an obligation because the TCM was contingent on a number of factors beyond MTC‘s control, id . at 699; and the fact that TCM 2 was an extension of T CM 1 that had as an enforceable strategy the improvement of transit services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit operators‘ five

- year plans, id . at 701. As a result of all of these factors, the Ninth Circuit found that TCM 2 clearly designated the productivity improvements as the only enforceable strategy. Id . at 703.
The commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised in 2009 and 2011) and 2007 Ozone Plan are in stark contrast to the ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview

. The language in C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments, as stated multiple times in multiple documents, is specific ; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy of adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is completely with in C ARB‘s and the District‘s control. Furthermore, as stated previously, C ARB and the District identify specific emission s reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which these reductions will be achieved

. See 76 FR 5784 6, 57854 (Table 8) (listing CARB‘s commitments) 57852 (Table 3) (listing the District‘s commitments).

C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are analogous to the terms of the contingency measures for the transportation sector in the 1982 Bay Area 1

- ho ur ozone SIP in Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian , 731 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990) ( known as
CBE I ) . The provision states: ―If a determination is made that RFP is not being met for the transportation sector, MTC will adopt additional TCMs w ithin 6 months of the determination. These TCMs will be designed to bring the region back within the RFP line." The court found that ―[o]n its face, this language is both specific and mandatory.‖ Id . at 1458. In CBE I

, CA RB and MTC argued that TCM 2 could not constitute an enforceable strategy because the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that ―[ w] e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for disregarding this

uneq uivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency measures are notDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 138 

### provided. Thus we hold that t he basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, full y enforceable in a
citizen ‘ s action, although the exact contours of those measures are not spelled out.‖ Id . at 1457. In concluding that the transportation and stationary source contingency provisions were enforceable, the court stated: ―Thus, while this C ourt is not empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the NAAQS]

-- or NAAQS

-- directly, it can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to in the Plan.‖ Id . at 1454; see also Citizens for a Better Envi ronment v. Metropolitan Tranp. Comm’n, 746 F. Supp. 976, 980 (N.D.Cal. 1990) [known as CBE II] (rejecting defendants‘ argument that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident and stating that the court‘s enforcement of the contingency plan , an express strategy for a ttaining NAAQS, is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved).

As in the CBE cases, C ARB and the District commit to propose or adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, to achieve a specific tonnage of emission s reductions by specif ic

years . Thus, the commitment to a specific tonnage reduction is comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount of emission s reductions through adoption and implementation of unidentified measures is compar able to the commitments to adopt unspecified TCMs and stationary source measures. The key is that the commitment must be clear in terms of what is required, e.g., a specified amount s of emission s reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progr ess (i.e., RFP). C ARB‘s and the District‘s commitments are thus a specific enforceable strategy rather than an unenforceable aspirational goal.

AIR ‘s reliance on El Comite (also referred to as Warmerdam ) to argue that CARB‘s
commitments are not enforceable is also misplaced. I n El Comite

, t he plaintiffs in the district court attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 California 1

- hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide Element. The Pesticide Element reli ed on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP‘s pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that ―ARB will develop a basel ine inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use data....‖ El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. Cal. 2006). C ARB subsequently employed a different methodology that it
deemed more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the original methodology, claiming that the calculation of the baseline inventory constitutes an ―emission standard or limitation.‖ The district court disagreed:
By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sources. As defendants argue, once the sources of air pollution are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to control emissions entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must
conclude that the baseline is not an emission ― standard ‖ or ― limitation ‖ within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 (f)(1)

- (4)

. Id . at 928. In its opinion, the court distingu ished Bayview and CBE I , pointing out that in those cases ―the measures at issue were designed to reduce emissions.‖ Id

. On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and the calculation methodology were necessary el ements of the overall enforceable commitment to reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court‘sDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 139 

### conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected plaintiffs‘ arguments attempting ―to transform the baseline inventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt regulations, if necessary.‖ Id . at 1073.

While AIR cites the Ninth Circuit‘s El Comite opinion, it s utility in analyzing the C ARB and District commitments here is limited to that court‘s agreement with the district court‘s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifies as an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court‘s opinion, in distinguishing the
commitments in CBE and Bayview , that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court recognized, a baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not a

measure to reduce emissions. It instead ―identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sources.‖ In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011) and SJV 2007 Ozone Plan, C ARB and the District commits to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified amounts of emissions
reduction s by specified dates . As described above, a number of courts have found commitments substantially similar to C ARB‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).



## B. Baseline Measures , Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration

Comment : AIR assert s that EPA‘s approval of the inventory in the Plan would violate CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) because the baseline inventory include s emissions reduction
credit for both ―waiver measures‖ and ―non

- waiver measures‖ adopted before 2007 (together referred to as ―baseline measures‖) that have not been approved into the SIP. AIR argues that EPA has not evaluated each of these baseline measur es to determine if they are creditable or quantified the emissions reductions attributed to each of these measures. Additionally, AIR asserts that EPA should disapprove the attainment demonstration because EPA has approved
neither mobile source baseline me asures nor pesticide measures as part of the SIP. AIR asserts that ―[t]he total tonnage attributed to these unsubmitted and non

- SIP approved measures in the attainment demonstration is not clear, because EPA does not differentiate between reductions from S IP

- approved measures, waiver measures, and those that have not received EPA approval.‖ Thus, AIR argues, ―a significant amount of emissions reduction s claimed in the attainment demonstration are not SIP creditable, a finding that EPA must make before appro ving the attainment demonstration.‖ AIR references CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) in support of these assertions and argues that ―EPA has failed to find that the reductions from the unsubmitted rules have occurred, are enforceable, or are otherwis e consistent with the Act, EPA‘s implementing regulations, and the General Preamble.‖

AIR identifies the following rules as examples of ―non

- waiver‖ baseline measures that have not been SIP

- approved:

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks (adopted October 20, 2005).

Heavy Duty Diesel Chip Reflash (adopted March 27, 2004);Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 140



### Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8 , 2005);

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adopted September 24, 2003);

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment (adopted May 26, 2006);

Pesticides

– Field Fumigant Limits (submitted to EPA October 12, 2009).

Response : We disagree with these assert ions. We explained in our P roposal TSD (section
II.A.3. ) our reasons for concluding both that the 200 2 base year inventory in the SIP is comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 1 82 ( a )( 1) and that the projected baseline inventories p rovide adequate bas e s and support for the RFP and attainment
demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP

. 74



### Specifically, with respect to mobile source emissions, w e believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate in the attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes notwithstanding the fa ct that such rules are not approved as part of the California SIP. In the P roposal TSD, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See P roposal TSD at section II.D.3.a.i

. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ― to aff ord California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health
of its c itizens and the public welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)). In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measure s notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs without submit ting the program as a SIP revision.
EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

- vehicle

- related waiver

measures in attainment and RFP demonstrations and for other SIP purposes by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the
emissions reductions from motor

- vehicle

- related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updat ed from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- established emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as M OVES

. 75 

### ) The SJV 200 7 8

- hour Ozo ne SIP was developed using a version of the EMFAC model referred to as EMFAC2007, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008). Thus, the emissions reductions that are from the California on

- road

74 For ozone nonattainment areas, a State that satisfies the specific invento ry requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) also satisfies the general inventory requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). See General Preamble at
13503

.

75 MOVES replaced the MOBILE model as EPA‘s on

- road mobile source emission estimation model for
use in SIPs and conformity in 2010.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 141 

### ―waive r measures‖ and that are estimated through use of EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MO VES m odel. All other states use the MOVES model (and prior to release of MOVES, the MOBILE model) in their baseline inventories without submitting the federal motor vehicle regulations for incorporation into their SIPs.
Similarly, emissions reductions that are from California‘s waiver measures for non

- road engines and vehicles (e.g., agricultural, construction, lawn and garden and off

- road recreation equipment) are estimated through use of CARB‘s OFFROAD emissions factor model. 76 

### ( Emissions reductions from EPA‘s non

- road engine and vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as NONROAD). Since 1990, EPA has treated California non

- road standards for which EPA has issued waivers in the same manner as California motor vehicle standards, i.e., allowing credit for standards subject to the waiver process without requiring submittal of the standards as part of the SIP. In so doing, EPA has treated the California non

road standards similarly to the Federal non

- road standards, which are relied upon, but not included in, various SIPs. See generally TSD at section II. D.3 .a.i.
CARB‘s EMFAC and OFFROAD models employ complex routines that predict vehicle fleet turnover by vehicle model years and include control algorithms that account for all adopted regulatory a ctions which, when combined with the fleet turnover algorithms, provide future
baseline projections. See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix F at 7

- 8. For stationary sources, the California Emission Forecasting System (CEFS) projects future emissions from stationary and area sources (in addition to aircraft and ships) using a forecasting algorithm that applies growth factors and control profiles to the base year inventory. 77 

### See id. at 7. The CEFS model integrates the projected inventories for both stationar y and mobile sources into a single database to provide a comprehensive statewide forecast inventory, from which nonattainment area inventories are extracted for use in establishing future baseline planning inventories. See id. In 2011, CARB updated the bas eline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating
emissions from th e heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 Ozone SI P Revisions, Appendix B. These methodologies for projecting future emissions based on growth factors and existing Federal, State, and local controls were consistent with EPA guidance on developing projected baseline inventories. See TSD at section II.A; se e also ―Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA

450/4

- 91

- 019, July 1991; ―Emission Projections,‖ STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Project, Volume X, December 1999 (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1 /eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf)

.

76 Information about CARB‘s emissions inventories for on

- road and non

- road mobile sources, and the
EMFAC and OF FROAD models used to project changes in future inventories, is available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.

77 I nf ormation on base year emissions from stationary point sources is obtained primarily from the districts, while CARB and the districts share responsibility for developing and updating information on emissions from various area source categories. See 2007 Sta te Strategy, Appendix F , p. 21.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 142 

### In sum, the 2002 base year and future projected baseline inventories in the SJV 200 7 8

- hour Ozone SIP were prepared using a complex set of CARB methodologies to estimate and project emissions from stationary sources, in addition to the most recent emissions factors and models and updated activity levels for emissions associated with mobile sources, including: (1)
the latest EPA

- approved California motor vehicle emissions factor model (EMFAC200 7) and the most recent motor vehicle activity data from each of the MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley ; (2) improved methodolog ies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3)
CARB's non

- road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model)

. See TS D , s ection II.A

. (referencing, inter alia

, 2007 State Strategy at Appendix F) and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. EPA has approved numerous California SIPs that rely on base year and projected baseline inventories including emissions estimates derived from the EMFAC

, OFFROAD , and CEFS models. See,

e.g., 65 FR 6091 (February 8, 2000 ) (proposed rule to approve 1

- hour ozone plan for South Coast) and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000) (final rule); 70 FR 43663 (July 28, 2005) (proposed rule to approve PM 10 

### plan for S outh Coast and Coachella Valley) and 70 FR 69081 (November 14, 2005) (final rule); 74 FR 66916 (December 17, 2009) (direct final rule to approve ozone plan for Monterey Bay) ; 76 FR 41338 (July 13, 2011) (proposed rule to approve in part and disapprove in p art the PM 2.5 

### plan for the San Joaquin Valley) and 76 FR 69896 (November 9, 2011) (final rule); and 76 FR 41562), (July 14, 2011) (proposed rule to approve in part and disapprove in part the PM 2.5 

### plan for the South Coast Air Basin) and 76 FR 69928 (Novemb er 9, 2011) (final rule). The commenter has provided no information to support a claim that these methodologies for developing base year inventories and projecting future emissions in the SJV are inadequate to support the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone
SIP.

For all of these reasons and as discussed in our propos ed rule (76 FR 57846, 57850 ), we conclude that the 2002 base year inventory in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP is a ―comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emi ssions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants‖ in the SJV area, consistent with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA
section 1 8 2( a )( 1 ), 40 CFR § 51. 915 , and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude
that the project ed future year baseline inventories were prepared consistent with EPA‘s guidance on development of emissions inventories and attainment demonstrations and, therefore, provide an adequate basis for the R FP and attainment demonstrations in the SIP under CAA sections 172(c)(2), 181(a), and 182(c)(2)

. See TSD at section II.A. 3.
Finally, we disagree with AIR‘s assertion that EPA has not identified the total amount of
emissions reduction s attributed to baseline measures in the projected inventories . T he total
amounts of emissions reduction s attributed to baseline measures in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, as revised in 2011, are 54.2 tpd of VOC and 338.6 tpd of NO
x 

### . See 76 FR 57846, 57858 , table 9 at line E; see also TSD, Table F

- 4 at line D

. As to the six specific baseline measures that AIR asserts should be SIP

- approved before crediting in the RFP and attainment demonstrations:

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In

- Use Trucks (effective November 15, 2006) and Fork Lifts and Other Indust rial Equipment Rule (adopted May 26, 2006). Both of these mobile source measures are pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA sectionDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 143 

### 209 (b) or section 209(e). 78

, 79 

### We expect that EPA will act on these requests for waivers of preemption or authorization under CAA section 209 in the near term, and that our final approval of the SJV 200 7 8

- hour Ozone SIP based in part on its reliance on the emissions reductions associated with these rules is, therefore, reasonable and appropriate. If, however, EPA either denies or does not issue the State‘s requested waiver for any of these measures prior to the effective date of today‘s action, we will take appropriate remedial action to ensure that our action on the plan is fully supportable or to reconsider that action.

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Ope rated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 200 5). CARB‘s staff report on this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this measures are 0.18 tpd NO
x 

### and 0.11 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.09 tpd NO
x 

### and 0.05 tpd VO C statewide in 2020. See CARB, Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities, October 2005, at pp. 55

- 56. SJV has approximately 10 percent

o f the statewide fleet ( id. ); therefore, the de minimis amounts of emissions reduction s attributed to this measure in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP do not affect our evaluation of its attainment and RFP demonstrations.

Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule (adop ted September 24, 2003) . CARB‘s staff report on this measure indicates that the projected emissions red uctions from this measure are 2.3 tpd
NO
x 

### and 0.72 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.6 tpd NO
x 

### and 0.34 tpd VOC statewide in
2020. See CARB, Supplemental Staff Report: Proposed Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

- Road Heavy

- Duty Residential and Commercial Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, August 8, 2003, at pg. 20. SJV has approximately 7 percent of the statewide fleet ( id. ); therefore, the de m inimis amounts of emissions reduction s attributed to this measure in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP do not affect our evaluation of its attainment and RFP demonstrations.

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash rule (adopted March 27, 2004) ( “ Chip Reflash” rule) . This rule w as intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB‘s NO
x 

### emission standard for heavy

- duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring in stallation of ―Low

- NO
x

78 EPA is currently reviewing a request from CARB for a determination as to whether certain requirements
of these anti

- idling rules are preempted by sections 209(a) of the CAA; certain provisions are conditions precedent

pur suant to section 209(a) of the Act; certain provisions are within

- the

- scope of previous waivers and authorizations issued pursuant to sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Act, respectively; and at least one provision requires and merits a full authorization p ursuant to section 209(e) of the Act. See 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010). CARB estimates that the operational requirement of the anti

- idling rule, which is not subject to a CAA section 209 waiver, achieves 0.2 tpd of
NO
x in the SJV. See Memorandum , Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2); to San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516 ―South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Emissions Reductions from ARB‘s Operational Idling Requirements,‖ September 28, 2011.

79 See letter, James Goldstene, E xecutive Officer, CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: Request for Authorizatio n Determination Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for Amendments to California‘s
Off

- Road Emissions Standards Regulation for large Spark

- Ignition (LSI) Engi nes and Fleet Requirement for In

- Use LSI Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment , December 10, 2008; and California State Motor Vehicle and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Truck Idling Requirements; Opportunity for Public Hearing and Request for Public Comment; Notice Of Opportunity For Public Hearing And Comment. 75 FR 43975 (July 27, 2010)Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 144 

### Software.‖ The Chip Reflash rule was invalidated in part by a California State C ourt , and CARB repealed the related regulations in June 2007. The emissions reduction credit
attributed to Chip Reflash in CARB‘s baseline inventories is limited to vehicles that have been ―reflashed,‖ i.e., physically installed the Low

- NO
x 

### Software, 80 

### removal of whi ch would constitute a violation of the CAA and/or California state law. See the statutory anti

- tampering laws in CAA section 203(a)(3) and California Vehicle Code section 27156. Thus, t he NO
x 

### emissions reductions attributed to ―reflashed‖ engines are enfor ceable under the CAA and/or California state laws.

Pesticide Regulation . Our approval of the RFP and attainment demonstrations in the SJV
2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP does not rely on emissions reductions from the Pesticides regulation (Field Fumigant Limits). Se e Table 7 in the propos ed rule at 76 FR 57846, 57852 which lists the State measures that are currently SIP creditable but does not list the pesticide measures. See also TSD, Table D

- 11 and Table G

- 3 (revised RFP demonstration with reductions from the Pesticides regulation removed). Redu ctions from the pesticide measure remain as part of the State‘s outstanding commitment. EP A expects to act on the pesticide element in 20 12. 81



### Comment : Citing line E on Table 9 of our proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 57858) 82 

### (―Reductions from baseline measures and improvements to the emissions inventories‖), AIR claims that while EPA‘s propos ed rule ―identifies the amount of total reductions at tributed to baseline measures, [it] otherwise does not set forth the total amount of reductions from baseline measures.‖ AIR states that, as originally submitted, the Plan claimed 41 tpd of VOC reductions and 355 tpd of
NO
x 

### reductions in 2023 from baseline measures, citing Table F

- 1 in EPA‘s TSD for the proposed
rule.

Response : The ―reductions from baseline measures‖ are calculated as the difference between the base year inventory and the projected 2023 baseline inventory and reflect not only the impact o f

80 The 2007 S tate Strategy, Appendix A, ―Emission Inventory Output Tables‖ documents the adjustment in the baseline that CARB made to account for Chip Ref lash (or Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Software Upgrade). As described in appendix A, CARB staff estimates that the overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus related actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NO
x emissions reductions state wide in year 2007. CARB also indicates that it took into account the fact that the software upgrade regulation had been invalidated by including no additional emissions reductions from chip reflash other than those that had already occurred due to complian ce with the regulation (prior to invalidation by the court), voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine rebuilds, engines upgrades by manufacturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks. CARB staff recently confirmed that the baseline adjustmen t for chip reflash in the 2007 State Strategy reflects emissions reduction credit only for engines that have been ―reflashed.‖ See Memorandum , Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2); to the San Joaquin Valley PM 2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516, ―SIP Credit for Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine
Low

- NO
x Software (―Chip Reflash‖);‖ September 28, 2011.

81 CARB submitted the pesticide regulations and additional commitments by the California Department of Pesticides to VOC emissions reduc tions in the SJV on October 12, 2009. See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2009. It submitted revisions to the pesticide regulations on August 2, 2011 See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 2, 2011.

82 In its comment letter, AIR cites to 76 FR 41338, 41354 which is EPA‘s July 13, 2011 proposed rule on
SJV 2008 PM 2.5 Plan, rather than 76 FR 57846, 57858, EPA‘s September 16, 2011 proposed rule on the SJV 8

- Hour Ozone Plan. We assume that AIR intended in these comments to refer to our September 16, 2011 proposal on the
SJV 8

- Hour Ozone Plan.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 145 

### pre

- existing controls (i.e., baseline measures) but also growth between the base year and attainment year. EPA has recalculated the amount of emissions reduction s attributed to these baseline measures to take into account the updates to the projected emi ssions inventories provided in CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP revision. The emissions reduction s attributed to baseline
measures in the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, as revised in 2011, are shown on line E on table 9 in the proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 57858) and line D on Table F

- 4 of the TSD. They are 54.2 tpd of VOC and 338.6 tpd of NO
x 

### . 83 

### Any adjustments to the inventories that affect the base year inventory or the 2023 baseline inventory are also included in these numbers.
As part of its 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, CARB s ubmitted revised 2002 base year and future year baseline inventories for the SJV. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B, p. B

- 3. These revised inventories incorporate improved activity data and/or emissions factors for diesel
trucks and buses and off

- ro ad equipment that were developed as part of CARB‘s December 2010 rulemakings amending its In

- Use On

- Road Truck and Bus Rule and In

- Use Off

- Road Equipment Rule. They also reflect revisions to the methodology for estimating NO
x 

### emissions from natural

gas fue led 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 PM 2.5 

### Plan. See Draft 2008 PM 2.5 

### Plan, Appendix B, Dece mber 2007. Collectively, these revisions reduce the total estimated 2002 base year NO
x 

### and VOC inventories by approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

9. These revisions have resulted in more accurate base year and projection year inventories. For a more detailed discussion of these inventory changes, see section II.A. of the TSD.
In addition to the methodology and data changes, CARB revised several future year baseline inventories 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. As a result, projected emission levels from these categories in the years up to 2017

- 201 8 are now lower than were originally projected in the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2007 State Strategy as submitted in November 2007. CARB estimates economic growth rates will return to previously projected levels by the 2017

- 2018 time period. See 2011 Ozone SIP
Re visions, Appendix B. The attainment year (2023) emissions projections, therefore, were not revised to reflect any recession

- related impacts.

Comment : AIR asserts that EPA has not approved any CARB mobile source baseline measures as part of the SIP or reviewed those measures to consider whether they achieve the reductions claimed by CARB, and that EPA cannot approve the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP when such a ―huge component of the control strategy‖ has not been SIP

- approved. AIR also asserts that CARB ha s not submitted copies of its mobile source baseline measures to EPA as part of this plan. AIR also assert s that waiver measures may not be used in attainment demonstrations because EPA makes no finding during the waiver process that the rules achieve the reductions claimed or that the measures are SIP creditable. AIR also notes that these issues are the subject

83 The 2007 Ozone Plan as originally submitted calculated baseline measure reductions between 2006 and 2023 ( see CARB S taff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6). The 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions calculated baseline measure reductions between 2002 and 2023 ( see 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B

- 3.). Althoug h they used different base years, both calculations assumed the same set of baseline measures; that is, measure adopted prior to 2007.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 146 

### of litigation in the 9 th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Sierra Club v. EPA , Consolidated Case
Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458.

Response : We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (―waiver measures‖) is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the Ca lifornia SIP. In our September 16, 2011 proposed rule and the technical support document (TSD) for that proposal, we explained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See 76 FR 57872, at 57879

- 57880 and the P roposal TSD, pp. 86

- 90. Historically, EPA has granted credit for the waiver measures because of special Congressional recognition, in establishing the waiver process in the first place, of the pioneering California motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order "to afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare," (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301

- 2 (1977)). In allow ing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always a llowed States to credit in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. As we explained in the Proposal TSD (p. 87), credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on

- road and nonroad standards, notwithstanding their absence in the SIP, is justified by reference to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which establishes the following content requirements for SIPs: ―... enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees , marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), ... , as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter.‖ (emphasis added). Federal measures are permanent, independently enforceable (by EPA and citizens), and qua ntifiable without regard to whether they are approved into a SIP, and thus EPA has never found such measures to be ―necessary or appropriate‖ for inclusion in SIPs to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. Section 209 of the CAA establishes a process under which EPA allows California‘s waiver measures to substitute for Federal measures, and like the Federal measures for which they substitute, EPA has historically found, and continues to find, based on considerations of permanence, enforceability, and quantifiability, that such measures are not ―necessary or appropriate‖ for California to include in its SIP to meet the applicable requirements of the Act.
First, with respect to permanence

, we note that, to maintain a waiver, CARB‘s on

- road waiver measur es can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)

. See section 209(b)(1)

. In this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California‘s on

- road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, th e FMVCP would apply in California)

. Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measure s

. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB ca n relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti

- backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193

. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State

program

. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with theDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 147 

### corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to most parts of the California program.
Second, as to enforceability, w e note that the waiver process itself bestows enforceability onto California to enforce the on

- road or nonroad standards for which EPA has issued the waiver. CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB‘s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA

program

. The history and rigor of CARB‘s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on the emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as EPA‘s mobile sou rce enforcement program lends assurance to other state ‘s SIPs in their reliance
on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not authorized to enforce California waiver measures under the Clean Air Act (i.e., because t hey are not in the SIP), citizens and EPA are authorized to enforce EPA standards in the event that vehicles operate in California without either California or EPA certification

. As to quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motor

vehicle

- related waiver measures by allowing California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California‘s EMFAC (and its predecessors) motor vehicle emissions
factor model in SIP inventories. EPA verifies the emissions reduct ions from motor

- vehicle

related waiver measures through review and approval of EMFAC, which is updated from time to time by California to reflect updated methods and data, as well as newly

- es tablished emissions standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s m otor vehicle standards are reflected in an analogous model known as MO VES .) The EMFAC model is based on the motor vehicle emissions standards for which California has received waivers from EPA but accounts for vehicle deterioration and many other factors

. The motor vehicle emissions estimates themselves combine EMFAC results with vehicle activity estimates, among other considerations

. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related EPA rulemakings approving the plan ( see 48 FR 5074 (February 3

, 1983 ) for the proposed rule and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions. 84 

### T he SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP was developed using a version of
the EM FAC model referred to as EMFAC200 7, which EPA has approved for use in SIP development in California. See 73 FR 3464 ( January 18, 2008 ). Thus, the emissions reductions

84 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence of the underly ing rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non

- vehicular (stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular co ntrol measures as including technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance prog ram. The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4

– E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle
emission standards we refe r to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following app endices are portions of the California Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to su bmit the underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 148 

### that are from the California on

- road ―waiver measures‖ and that are estimated through use of
EMFAC are as verifiable as are the emissions reductions relied upon by states other than California in developing their SIPs based on estimates of motor vehicle emissions made through the use of the MO VES model.

Moreov er, EPA‘s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval

process

. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request

. W hen EPA receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public comment period

. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process)

. Second , just as SIP revisions are not effective until approved b y EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. Third, both types of final actions by
EPA

-- i.e., final actions on California requests for waivers and final actions on state submittals of SIPs and SIP revisions may be challenged under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals.
AIR correctly notes that EPA‘s treatmen t of California waiver measures in SIP actions is the subject of current litigation in Sierra Club v. EPA , Consolidated Case Nos. 10

- 71457 and 10

- 71458 (9 th Circuit).

Comment : AIR argues that our reliance on the general savings clause in CAA section 193 f or the proposal to grant emissions reduction credit to California‘s waiver measures without first having California submit and EPA approve them into the SIP is inappropriate for two reasons. First, AIR argues that CAA section 193 only saves those ―formal r ules, notices, or guidance documents‖ promulgated before the effective date of the 1990 amendment that are not inconsistent with the CAA. It asserts that the plain language of the CAA requires that California submit the control measures, rules and regulati ons used to meet CAA requirements as part of the SIP and that nothing in CAA title II or section 209 provide a basis for EPA‘s position. Second, AIR argues that there is no automatic presumption that Congress is aware of an agency‘s interpretations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware of our interpretation regarding the SIP treatment of California‘s mobile source control measures. AIR also argues that our positions that Congress must expressly disapprove of EPA‘s long

- standing
inter pretation and Congressional silence equates to a ratification of EPA‘s interpretation are
incorrect.

Response : In the Proposal TSD (pp. 89

- 90 ), we indicated that we believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long

standing pr actice of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA's treatment of California's motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. R ather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of nonroad vehicles and engines, once again reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the
healt h of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California withDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 149 

### the broadest possible discretion as to on

- road and nonroad vehicle an d engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California's mobile so urce rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two.
In summary, we disagree that our interpretation of CAA section 193 is fundamentally flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver measures in our approval of attainment demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies our long

- standing practice of allowing credit for California's waiver measures notwithstanding the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in the development and promulgation of on

- road and nonroad vehicle and engi ne standards. 85



## C . Reasonably Available Control Measures

Comment : AIR takes issue with EPA ‘s policy interpretation of the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1) that a SIP meets the RACM requirement if it includes all reasonably available measures that individually or in combination with other such measures can advance attainment of the releva nt standard by at least one year . The commenter claims this interpretation is ―not based on the language of the statute and is irrational and perverse in the context of the SIP approval here.‖ Specifically, AIR argues that because the 2007 8

- Hour Ozone SIP includes a ―black box,‖ under EPA‘s reasoning no controls would need to be adopted as RACM because
even the controls that the District and State have identified as RACM would not advance attainment by a year.

In addition, AIR claims that the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP neither provides for attainment nor identifies the controls needed to attain, and that it is not rational to suggest that additional, feasible controls need not be adopted. AIR asserts that if a control is economically and technically feasible, t hen it is reasonably available and must be adopted. Finally, AIR argues that
such controls could advance attainment and that ―[a]s technology is developed, it very well could allow for earlier attainment, especially if the Plan minimizes the magnitude of e missions
reduction s put into the  ̳black box.‘‖

Response : Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires that each attainment plan ―provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reduction s in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ For over 30 years, EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require that States adopt only those

85 In this regard, we disagree that we are treating the waiver measures inconsistently with other California
control measures, such as consumer products and fuels rules, for the simple reason that, unlike the waiver measures, there is no history of past practice or legislative history supporting treatment of other California measures, such as consumer products rules and fuels rules, in any manner differently than is required as a general rule under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local measures that are relied upon for SIP purposes must be approved into the
SIP.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 150 

### ―reasonably available‖ measures necessary for expeditious attainment and to meet RFP requirements. See 40 CFR § 51.912(d) and § 51.1010; 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) (P art D of title I of the CAA ―does not require that all sources apply RACM if less than all RACM will suffice for [RFP] and attainment‖); General Preamble at 13560 (―where measures that might in fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require implementation of such measures‖) 86 

### ; ―Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement an d Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,‖ November 30, 1999 (1999 Seitz Memo) ( a State may justify rejection of a measure as not ―reasonably available‖ for that area based on technological or economic grounds); and 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) at 71660, 71661 (noting that ― to require areas to adopt and implement as RACM every control technology or measure that obtains
a small amount of emissions reductions

-- even if such measure would not advance the attainment
date or is not required to meet RFP requirements

-- is not justified" as it "would be extremely burdensome to planning agencies, would detract from the effort to develop more reasonable and effective controls to meet the NAAQS, and would not be necessary to meet the statut ory goal of expediting attainment ‖ ); see also preamble to PM 2.5 

### Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 at 20613, 20615 (April 25, 2007) (stating that a RACM demonstration should ―focus on the most effective measures with the greatest possibility for significant air quality improvements‖) . EPA‘s interpretation of section 172(c)(1) has been upheld by several courts. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, et al ., 294 F. 3d 155 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA , 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002).
Second, we disagree with AIR‘s assertion that our approach to RACM is ―irrational‖ or ―perverse‖ in the context of a plan that includes a ―black box,‖

– i.e., an attainment demonstration that relies to some extent on the development of new control techniqu es or improvement of existing control technologies in accordance with CAA section 182(e)(5). Congress first enacted the RACM requirement as part of the CAA Amendments of 1977

, which required SIPs for all nonattainment areas to provide for application of al l ―reasonably available control measures,‖ 87 

### including RA CT for all stationary sources. See 44 FR 53761 at 53762 (September 17, 1979) (citing sections 172(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the 1977 CAA). 88 

### As part of the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created specif ic nonattainment area planning

86 EPA also believes it is not reasonable to requi re the adoption of measures that are absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable. See General Preamble at 13560 ; see also 55 FR 38 32 6 (September 18, 1990) (revoking prior EPA guidance to the extent it suggested or stated that areas with severe pollution problems must implement every conceivable control measure including those that would cause severe socioeconomic disruption. )

87 The term ―reasonably available control measures‖ is not specifically defined in the CAA. EPA first interpreted the term in guida nce issued in 1979. See 44 FR 20 372 (April 4, 1979). That guidance established the principle that RACM is determined based on evaluation of a collection of control measures submitted as part of the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan and attainment dem onstration for a particular NAAQS. See id. at 20375; see also id. at 20373 (noting that ―states often have flexibility to obtain more or less emissions reduction from any one measure, as long as a group of measures in the plan is adequate‖).

88 Section 172 (b) of the 1977 CAA stated, in relevant part, as follows: ―The plan provisions required by subsection (a) of this section [for nonattainment areas] shall

— (2) provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as p racticable; [and] (3) require, in the interim, reasonable further progress... including such reduction in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology; . . .‖Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 151 

### requirements for ozone, including section 182(e)(5) of the Act, which allows for approval of a plan for an extreme ozone nonattainment area that relies in part on the development of new control techniques or improvements to e xisting technologies. Notably, however , Congress did not substantively alter the RACM requirement, although it moved the provision from section 172(b)(2) to section 172(c)(1) of the amended Act

. Following the 1990 Amendments, EPA has consistently reaffirme d its pre

- existing interpretation of the RACM requirement, i.e., that only
those measures that would advance attainment or that are needed to meet reasonable further progress requirements are ―reasonably available‖ within the meaning of section 172(c)(1)

. See,

e.g., 57 FR 13498 at 13560 (A pril 16, 1992); 1999 Seitz Memo ; 40 CFR § 51.912(d) and 70 FR 71612 at 71660, 71661 (November 29, 2005) ; see also Sierra Club v. EPA , 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002) (concluding that section 193 of the 1990 CAA expresses Congress‘ intent to preserve EPA‘s pre

- 1990 interpretation of the RACM requirement).
Thus, the CAA explicitly contemplates that, for an extreme ozone nonattainment area, even where all RACM necessary for expeditious attainment and RFP are implemented,
add itional control measures based on new or improved control techniques ( i.e., control measures yet to be defined) may be necessary to attain the ozone NAAQS. These n ew or improved control techniques are, by definition, not reasonably available for current im plementation in the
nonattainment area . AIR‘s comment suggests that our approval of a plan containing only those RACM necessary for expeditious attainment and RFP under CAA section 172(c)(1), together with new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e) (5) and other plan elements required under subpart 2 of part D, is somehow absurd. For the reasons discussed above, however, w e believe Congress intended to allow for approval of both those reasonably available measures that contribute to expeditious attai nment and new technology provisions as elements of a reasonable strategy for attaining the ozone NAAQS in the SJV area. We therefore disagree with AIR‘s claim
that the 2007 8

- hour O zone SIP fails to provide for attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard s

. A s explained in our propos ed rule , the 2007 Ozone Plan includes a n enforceable commitment by the SJVUAPCD to adopt 19 control measures in the near term , all but one of which the District has since adopted. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6

- 1 and 76 FR 57846, 57851 (Table 2). 89 

### Also as part of the near term emissions reduction s, CARB committed to bring 11 measures to its Board that would contribute emissions reductions to the SJV and now has completed rulemaking on many of them including requirements for in

- use off

- road equipment
and in

- use heavy duty diesel trucks that are the first of their kind nationwide

. See 76 FR 57846,
5785 3 (Table 5 ). We anticipate that t hese measures will accelerate introduction of the most stringent currently available new engine and re trofit technologies for these sources and result in
almost full deployment of these technologies by 2023. 90 

### These new measures are in addition to the many rules and regulations adopted by the District and State prior to the development of the
SJV 8

- H our Ozo ne SIP (baseline measures), which collectively achieve more than 80 percent of

89 The one measure that the SJVUAPCD has not adopted is a measure regulating aviation fuel storage (Control Measure S

- PET

- 3), which the District determined was infeasible. See SJVUAPCD, ―Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rules 2020, 4 621, 4622, and 4624,‖ December 20, 2007, p. 2.

90 The California Bureau of Automotive Repair, which implements California‘s SmogCheck program, and the California Department of Pesticides also have adopted measures as part of the 2007 State Strategy. See 20 09 State Strategy Status Report, p. 4.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 152 

### NO
x 

### and 47 percent of VOC reductions needed to attain the 8

- hour ozone standard

. See 76 FR 57846, 87859 (Table 10); see also Appendices A and B of TSD. Thus, contrary to the imp lication of AIR‘s argument, this is not a situation where the area is not adopting and implementing a variety of control measures that have been determined reasonable for other areas. In fact, SJVUAPCD is on the cutting edge of the type and level of contro ls it has required for sources in the area. 91



### Finally, we do not dispute AIR‘s statement that ―[a]s technology is developed , it very well could allow for earlier attainment‖ and reduce the magnitude of emissions reduction s put into the ―black box‖

– i.e., attributed to the plan provisions for new and improved technologies. At this time, however, we are not aware of currently available technologies or control measures that would achieve emissions reductions sufficient to advance attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the SJV, and AIR has not identified any such measures.

Comment : AIR disputes EPA‘s statement that the process and criteria the District used to select certain measures and reject others are consistent with EPA‘s RACM guidance , asserting that the District‘s approach to evaluating economic feasibility is not consistent with EPA guidance because the District rejects control options based on the ―affordability‖ of controls for a particular industry . Citing, for example

, the District‘s Revise d Proposed Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning , at p. 1

- 4 (May 20, 2010) , AIR states that the District rejects controls ―not based solely on the cost

- effectiveness of controls but based on an overly simplistic ratio of costs to profits for the industry,‖ referred to as the ― ̳10 percent of profits‘ test,
to determine whether con trols are economically feasible.‖ AIR also asserts that this 10

- percent

of

- profits test ―has no connection to whether an industry is actually capable of bearing t he costs of control, let alone whether the control should be considered co st

- effective on a dollars per ton
of emissions reduction basis.‖
In support of these assertions, AIR quotes from EPA‘s Supplement to the General
Preamble ( 57 F R 18070, 18074 (April 28, 1992)) and states that EPA ―presumes that it is
reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of emissions reduction s‖ because ―[e]conomic feasibility rests very little on the ability of a particular source to  ̳afford‘ to reduce
emissions to th e level of similar sources.‖ AIR further quotes from this same document to assert
that ―capital costs, annualized costs, and cost effectiveness . . . should be determined for all technologically feasib le emissions reduction options‖ and notes that c ost eff ectiveness is the cost per amount of emissions reduction (in tons) per year.

Response : We agree generally that an economic feasibility analysis based on the use of a ―10 percent of profits‖ test is not a sufficient basis for rejecting a control option fro m consideration as RACM under CAA section 172(c)(1). As AIR correctly notes, under EPA‘s long

- standing guidance on evaluating economic feasibility for RACM/RACT under CAA section 172(c)(1), EPA presumes that the cost of using a control measure is reasonabl e if those same costs are borne by other comparable facilities. See, e.g., 57 FR 18070, 18074 (April 28, 1992) and 59 FR 41998, 42009 (August 16, 1994). EPA guidance provides that economic feasibilit y is largely determined by evidence that other sources in a source category have in fact applied the control

91 Neither the District nor CARB rejected any potential RACM based on a finding that it would not advance attainme nt (alone or in combination with other potential measures), and AIR has not identified any such

measur e s

.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 153 

### technology in question and may also be based on cost effectiveness ( i.e., calculation of the cost per amount of emissions reduction in $/ton). Id . However, we note that our policy merely establishes a pre sumption and RACT is determined based on a source category or single source analysis; therefore, states can present additional or other evidence of what constitutes RACT for a source category or a single source.

For that reason, w e disagree, with AIR ‘s s uggestion that cost effectiveness must be the
sole criterion for evaluating economic feasibility. EPA‘s Supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992)

, which AIR quotes from, provides that a state ― may give substantial weight to cost effectiveness in evaluating the economic feasibility of an emissions reduction technology‖ but does not indicate that cost effectiveness is the only acceptable criterion. 92 

### See 57 FR 18070, 1807 4 (emphasis added). To the con trary, in numerous guidance documents EPA has identified cost effectiveness as one of several factors that states may consider in evaluating the economic feasibility of an available control option. See, e.g., 57 FR 18070, 18074 (―[t]he capital costs, annua lized costs, and cost effectiveness of an emissions
reduction technology should be considered in determining its economic feasibility‖) (emphasis added); 57 FR 55620

, 55625 (November 25, 1992) (―NO
x 

### Supplement to General Preamble‖) (―comparability‖ of a NO
x 

### RACT control level ―shall be determined on the basis of several factors including, for example, cost, cost

- effectiveness, and emission reductions‖); 59 FR 41998

, 42013 (August 16, 1994) (―PM 10 

### Addendum to General Preamble‖) (―capital costs, annualized

c osts, and cost effectiveness of an emission reduction technology should be considered in determining its economic feasibility‖); and Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, EPA, Air Quality Management Division, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regions I

– X, ―Cost

- Ef fective Nitrogen Oxides (NO
x 

### ) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

, ‖ March 16, 1994 (―[w]hile cost effectiveness... is an important consideration, it must be noted that other factors should be integrated into a RACT analysis [such as] emission redu ctions and environmental impact...‖). 93

92 In the Supplement to the General Preamble, EPA stated that ―[c]ost effectiveness provides a value for
each emissions reduction option that is comparable with other options and other facilities‖ but also stated that companies may provide other source

- specific information about costs for consideration in an economic feasibility analysis:

If a company contends that it cannot afford the technology that appears to be RACT for that source or group of sources, the claim should be supported with such information as impact on:
1. Fixed and variable production cost ($/unit), 2. Product supply and demand elasticity, 3. Product prices (cost a bsorption vs cost pass

- through) 4. Expected costs incurred by competitors, 5. Company profits, and 6. Employment.

57 FR 18070, 18074.

93 EPA also included guidance on economic feasibility determinations in the preamble to its 2007 PM 2.5 Implementation Rule

. See 72 FR 20586, 20619

- 20620 (April 25, 2007). In June 2007, a petition to the EPA Administrator was filed on behalf of several public health and environmental groups requesting, among other things,
reconsideration of elements of this economic feasibilit y guidance. See Earthjustice, Petition for Reconsideration, ―In the Matter of Final Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,‖ June 25, 2007. On April 25, 2011, EPA granted this petition. See Letter, Lisa P. Jackson, EPA, to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, Apr il 25, 2011. EPA did not rely on the economic feasibility guidance in the PM 2.5 implementation rule preamble in its review of the SJV 2007 8

- hour
Ozone Plan.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 154 

### We also disagree with AIR‘s suggestion that the ―affordability‖ of controls for a particular industry cannot play any role as part of an economic feasibility analysis. Although EPA has stated that ―[e]conomic feasibilit y rests very little on the ability of a particular source to  ̳afford‘ to reduce emissions to the level of similar sources‖ (57 FR 18070, 18074) (emphasis added), this does not mean that affordability on an industry

- wide basis may not be considered as part of an economic feasibility analysis, among other factors. 94



### As we explained in our SJV 2009 RACT SIP final action, 95 

### the District generally
consider s multiple factors in evaluating the economic feasibility of available control options during its rule development processes , including capital costs, annualized costs, cost

effectiveness, and compliance costs as a percentage of profits. 96 

### Given EPA's long

- standing position that s tates may justify rejection of a control measure as not ―reaso nably available‖ based

on the technical and economic circumstances of the particular sources being regulated , it is appropriate for the District to consider multiple factors in evaluating the cost s of potential control options to determine if they are econ omically feasible for sources located within the SJV. With respect to SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 (Open Burning), which AIR references as an example of the District‘s use of a ―10 percent of profits‖ test to evaluate economic feasibility, EPA previously
reviewed th e District‘s analyses and explained our bases for concluding that the rule requires all control measures for open burning that are technically and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV area. See ―Revisions to the California State Implementati on Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;" final rule, pre

- publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4103).

Comment : AIR asserts that EPA cannot defend the cost

- effectiveness criteria used by the
District because the cri teria have not been justified based on the attainment needs of the area.
AIR further asserts that ―EPA‘s cursory and conclusory analysis of the District‘s RACM demonstration is not sufficient to comply with the requirements and objectives of the [CAA],‖

an d that it not possible to make a RACM demonstration for the SJV without explaining what is

94 The SJVUAPCD‘s ―percent of profits‖ evaluation considers the economic impact of a rule or rule revision on the industries located within SJV as a whole rather than the economic impact for any particular source.
See , for examples, the socioeconomic studies prepared for Rule 4570 found in Appendix D of the District‘s Final Staff Report, Revised Propo sed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) ,October 21, and for Rule
4311 foun d in Appendix D to SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4311 (“Flares” ) , June 18, 2009.

95 See ―Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone;‖ Final rule, pre

- publication notice signed December 15, 2011, Response to Comment #4 (―SJV 20 09 RACT SIP final action‖). The 2009 RACT SIP is
SJVUAPCD‘s Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP) , April 16, 2009, which was adopted by the SJVUAPCD on April 16, 2009 and submitted to EPA on June 18, 2009.

96 The District evaluates the potential effects of its proposed rules on industry profits as part of the socio

economic impacts analysis required by California state law for certain rules. See California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC), s ect ion 40728.5 . The District is also required by California state law to evaluate the cost effectiveness, both absolute and incremental, of most of its proposed rules and rule revisions. See CH&SC section 40920.6(a)

. For a discussion of t he District‘s socio

- e conomic and cost effectiveness evaluations, s ee Memorandum dated December 18, 2008, from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/APCO, SJVUAPCD to the SJVUAPCD Governing Board, Re: Economic Feasibility Analysis and Related Considerations for New Regulations, p. 5.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 155 

### needed for attainment and using the attainment need to justify the thresholds used to accept or eliminate available control options. AIR cites EPA‘s 1992 General Pre amble 13541 in support of
these assertions

. Response : It is not clear what AIR is referring to by ― cost

- effectiveness criteria used by the
District .‖ We are not aware of a specific dollar per ton threshold that the District routinely uses to reject contro l options during its rule development processes and AIR does not provide one. 97



### To the extent AIR intended to object to the District‘s use of a ―10 percent of profits‖ test, rather than to any particular ―cost

- effectiveness‖ criteria, we have responded to that concern above. We note also that s ince the District‘s submittal of the 8

- hour ozone plan in 2007, EPA has
SIP

- approved a num ber of rules that the District adopted despite cost estimates exceeding the ―10 percent of profits‖ threshold for one or more i ndustries subject to the rule, including:

Rule 4311

– Flares (June 18, 2009)
Cost of control on one regulated industry (frozen fruit, fruit juices manufacturing) was calculated at 13.3 percent of profits. 98



### Rule 4682

– Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene and Pol ypropylene Manufacturing (September 20, 2007)
Cost of controls were calculated at 28 percent of profits. 99



### Rule 4570

– Confined Animal Facilities (October 21, 2010)
Cost of controls for large dairies was calculated at 20.9 percent of profits and for
small dairies at 88.9 percent of profits. 100



### We agree with AIR‘s position that it is not possible to make a RACM demonstration for
the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV without explaining what is needed to attain that standard in the area. This explanation i s provided in both the 2007 Ozone Plan and EPA‘s proposed approval of the Plan. See 2007 Ozone Plan

, Chapter 3 ( ―What is Needed To Demonstrate Attainment?‖ ) and 76 FR 57846, 57857 (September 16, 2011)

. See also 2007 State

97 A revie w of some of the SJV rules adopted since 2007 give cost effectiveness values ranging from $1,500

- $ 2 ,000 per ton of NO
x (Rule 4308

– Boilers 0.75 to 2.0 MMBtu) to $12,600 to $51,800 per ton of NO

x (Rule
4702

– I nternal Combustion Engines), an d $2

, 240 per ton of VOC (Rule 4601

– Architectural Coatings ) to $13,000 to $31,000 per ton of VOC (Rule 4607

– Graphic Arts). See SJVUPACD, Final Staff Report for Amendments to
Rule 4308 , December 17, 2009, Appendix C, p. C

- 7; Final Staff Report for Revise d Proposed Amendments to Rule
4702

, August 18, 2011

, p. 20 ; Final Staff Report for Amendments to Rule 4 601 , December 17, 2009, Appendix C, p.
C

- 3; and Final Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4 607 , December 18 , 20 08, Appendix C, p. C

4.

98 SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4311 (Flares) , June 18, 2009, Appendix D, p. D

- 29. EPA approved this rule on November 3, 2011. See 76 FR 68106.

99 SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 (Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene and Polypropylene Manufacturing) , September 20, 2007, Appendix D, p. D

- 17. EPA proposed a limited approval/limited disapproval of this rule on July 15, 2011. See 76 FR 41745.

100 SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Revi sed Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) , October 21, 2010, Appendix D , p. D

- 24. EPA approved this rule on December 13, 2011. See Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Cont rol District; Final rule.
Pre

- publication version signed December 13, 2011.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 156 

### Strategy, p. 33 and EPA‘s TSD, sec tion II.F. To provide the emissions reductions needed to attain, the State and District developed a four part control strategy which is described in the Plan.
See 2007 Ozone Plan at Chapter 4 ( ―Strategy‖ ), Chapter 6 ( ―District Regulatory Control
Measures f

or Stationary Sources‖ ), Chapter 7 ( ―Action Plan for Reducing Emissions with Incentive Funds‖ ), Chapter 8 ( ―Innovative Strategies and Programs‖ ), and Chapter 9 ( ―Local, State, and Federal Controls‖ ). See also 2007 State Strategy, Chapter 3 ( ―ARB‘s 2007 SIP State Strategy‖ ).
Chapter 6 of the Plan describes the process the District undertook to identify potential stationary source control measures for adoption; that is, to identify potential RACM within its jurisdiction. 101 

### This measure identification process resulted in the development of a stationary source regulatory implementation schedule which lists not only the specific control measures that the District committed to adopt but also the schedule for their adoption and implementation and their anticipated emissions reductions by year. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6

- 1, p. 6

- 5. It is this regulatory implementation schedule (and a similar one developed for the subsequent SJV 2008
PM 2.5 

### Plan) that has in large part determined the District‘s rulemaking calendar over the last few

years , and the anticipated emissions reductions listed in this implementation schedule have helped to define the needed stringency of the individual rules. Supporting information for the
District ‘s adopt ed rules shows that during the rule

- development process, the District considers its control strategies and the e missions reductions needed for attainment that it has identified in its plans. For example, section I.A. (―Reasons for Rule Development and Impl ementation‖) in the Rule 4320 SJV Staff Report 102 

### discusses both the deadline for adoption and the anticipated reductions from these new and revised rule s in the 2007 Ozone Plan and states : ―[t]his rulemaking project is intended to satisfy the attainment goa ls of the District‘s 2007 Ozone plan,‖ ―[t]he plan calls for a total of 1.1 tons per day of NO
x 

### reductions [from large and medium boilers] ...,‖ and ―[t]he proposed amendments...will seek to obtain as much reduction of [NO
x 

### ] from boilers, steam generators, and process heaters as expeditiously [as] practicable and technologically and economically feasible.‖ 103



### Comment : AIR states that RACM is not limited to major sources, quoting EPA‘s recommendation in the General Preamble at 13541 that ―a State‘s control analy sis for existing stationary sources go beyond major stationary sources and that the state require control technology for other sources that are reasonable in light of the areas attainment needs.‖ AIR claims that an analysis of the effect of applying additi onal controls to non

- major sources has not been conducted and therefore, EPA has no basis for its determination that additional reasonable controls are not available or that such control could not advance attainment. AIR further claims that the District‘s RACT demonstration only explores controls on sources down to 10 tons per

year

.

101 The detailed evaluation of each potential controls is found in Appendix I of the 2007 Ozone Plan.

102 SJVUAPCD, Final Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4306, Proposed Amendments to Rule 4307, and Proposed New Rule 4320 , October 16, 2008 (Rule 4320 SJV Staff Report)

103 Most if not all District staff reports on proposed rule adoptions or amendments include a section discussing the reasons for rule develop and implementation. This section generally list the CAA provisions applicable to the rule (e.g., section 182(b)(2) R ACT) and identifies whether the rulemaking project is part of the area‘s ozone and/ or PM 2.5 control strategy and the reductions from the rule called for in the plan.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 157 

### Response : We agree that a RACM analysis should not be limited to major sources. See General Preamble at 13541. We disagree, however, with AIR‘s assertion that the District failed to evaluate controls for non

- major sources. The District‘s control measure evaluation (documented in Appendices H and I of the Plan) was not limited to major stationary sources 104 

### but covered a wide variety of small stationary sources (e.g., gasoline stations, p. I

- 75), area sources 105 

### (e.g., architectural coatings, p. I

- 100; asphalt roofing, p. I

- 56; and residential water heaters, p. I

- 28), indirect sources 106 

### (e.g., employer trip reduction, p. I

- 141) and mobile sources (e.g., school buses, p. I

- 156).

Mo st of the District‘s rules currently apply to source s much smaller than major sources.
See , for example, Rule 4607

– Graphic Arts which applies to any graphic arts source that emits more that 1.2 tpy of VOC , Rule 4308

– Boilers 0.75

– 2 MMBtu/hr which appl ies to all boilers of this size without regard to the source size; Rule 4622

– Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicles which applies to most retail gasoline station; and Rule 4902

– Residential Water Heaters. 107 

### We also note that of the 18 measures that the Di strict has adopted following its submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan , all but two (glass melting furnaces and brandy and wine aging) regulate non

- major

sources. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6

- 1. See also , Table D

- 3.

As to AIR‘s claim that ―[t]he District‘s RACT demonstration only explores controls on sources down to 10 tons per year,‖ this statement is not germane to our evaluation of the Plan‘s
RACM demonstration under CAA section 172(c)(1). The District submitted the 2009 RACT
SIP 108 

### to meet the technology

- based RACT requirements for specific types of sources in CAA section 182(b)(2) and (f). These requirements are separate from the RACM obligation in CAA section 172(c)(1), and EPA therefore evaluated the 2009 RACT SIP for compliance only with these specific cont rol technology requirements. See SJV 2009 RACT SIP final action.

Comment : As examples of potential additional RACM, AIR lists open burning controls, tighter glass melting standards, improved solid

- fuel boiler standards, tighter animal feeding controls,
ad vanced boiler controls including conversion from coal to natural gas, and the expansion of
retrofit controls to non

- major sources.

Response : We discuss each of these suggested measures below.

104 A major stationary source in an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme is any s tationary facility or source of air pollutant which directly emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons of VOC or 10 tons of NOx per

year. See CAA sections 302(j) and 182(e).

105 An area source is a source that is too small and/or too numerous to be indivi dually inventoried. Examples of areas sources are fireplaces, consumer products, and unpaved roads.

106 An indirect source is a facility, building or other structure which attracts mobile sources. Examples of indirect sources are office buildings and shoppi ng malls. See CAA section 110(c)(4)(C).

107 We have identified only seven District prohibitory rules (of the approximately 60 District rules that regulate NO
x and/or VOC) which apply only to units at major sources: Rule 435 2

– Solid Fuel Boilers (NO
x ); Ru le
435 4

– Glass Melting Furnaces (NO
x and VOC); Rule 4311

– Flares (SO
x , NO
x , and VOC); Rule 4610

– Glass Coating Operations (VOC); Rule 4693

– Bakeries (VOC); Rule 4694

– Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks (VOC); and Rule 4695

– Brandy and Wine Aging (VO C).

108 We assume here that AIR intended to refer to the SJV 2009 RACT SIP.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 158 

### Open burning controls : Open burning in the SJV is regulated b y District Rule 4103. EPA recently determined that this rule satisfied applicable CAA requirements and fully approved the
rule into the SJV portion of the California SIP. See 76 FR 40660 (July 11, 2011) (proposed rule)
and ―Revisions to the California Stat e Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;" final rule, pre

- publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4103) ) . As part of that action, EPA reviewed the District‘s evaluation of the postponement of burning proh ibitions for certain agricultural crop categories and concurred with the District‘s
conclusion that alternatives to open burning for these crop categories are not reasonably available for implementation in the SJV area at this time, considering technological and economic feasibility ( See , e.g., EPA‘s June 2011 TSD 109 

### at pp. 5

- 7). For the reasons stated in those separate proposed and final rules concerning Rule 4103, we conclude in this final action on the 2007 Ozone Plan that Rule 4103 requires all RACM for open burning in SJV and that additional controls are not reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.
Tighter glass melting standards : NO
x 

### emissions from glass melting furnaces in the SJV are regulated by District Rule 4354. EPA has determined that the Rule‘s NO
x 

### limits represent RACT for major sources and has approved the rule as meeting RACT under CAA section 182 for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards. See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011). We are not aware of other California district regulations requiring more stringent NO
x 

### control measures for glass melting furnaces that are reasonably available for impleme ntation in the SJV area, and the commenter has not identified any such control measures. See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011) (final rule approving Rule 4354 as satisfying RACT under CAA section 182) and the SJV 2009 RACT SIP final action, Response to Comment #3b

. Improved solid

-

fuel boilers : NO
x 

### emissions from solid

- fuel fired boilers in the SJV are regulated by District Rule 4352 . In 2010, EPA disapproved all of the NO
x 

### emission limits in Rule 4352 based on our conclusion that the District had failed to adequately demonstrate that these limits satisfy CAA section 182 RACT requirements. See 75 FR 60623 (October 1, 2010). As part of our proposed action on the SJV 2007 8

- ho ur Ozone SI P, we evaluated whether additional controls on this source category, combined with other potential RACM

, would expedite
attainment and proposed to find that they would not. See Proposal T SD, section II.C.3. and 76
FR 57856. In response to this c omment, we have reevaluated whether additional controls on
solid

- fuel fired boilers in combination with other potential RACM, including those suggested by the commenter, would advance attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV and
conclude that th ey would not. See Table III

- 1 below and TSD, section II.C.3.
Tighter animal feeding controls : VOC emissions from animal feeding operations in the SJV are regulated by District rule 4570. EPA recently determined that this rule satisfie s RACT under
CAA sect ion 182 and fully approved the rule into the SJV portion of the California SIP. See 76
FR 56706 (September 14, 2011) (proposed rule) and ―Revisions to the California State

109 A ir Division , EPA

– Region 9, Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for the California State Implementation Plan San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4103, Open Burning ,‖ June 2011 . (―Rule 4103 TSD‖)Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 159 

### Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; ‖ final rule, pre

pub lication notice signed December 13 , 201 1).
Advanced boiler controls including conversion from coal to natural gas : District Rule 4320 (Advanced Emissions Reductions Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process Heaters Greater Th an 5.0 MMBtu/hr) requires large gas

- or liquid

- fueled boilers to comply with the Rule‘s NO
x 

### emissions limitations or pay a fee in lieu of compliance with the limits

. Boilers subject to Rule 4320 are also subj ect to District Rule 4306

, which EPA has determi ned satisfies
RACT under CAA section 182 for these boilers

. See 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010). Rules 4320 and 4306 apply to all boilers greater than 5.0 MMBtu/hour whether or not the boiler is located at a major source; therefore, the limits in these rules apply to minor sources. EPA has also determined that boilers less than 5 MMBtu/hr in the SJV are also subject to RACT. See 75 FR 1715 (January 13, 2010)(approval of Rule 4307

– Boilers 2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) and 76 FR 5276 (January 31, 2011)(approval of Rule 43 08

– Boilers

- 0.75 to 2.0 MMBtu). Like Rule 4320, these rules apply based on the size of the boiler and not the size of source at which the boiler is located. 110



### Coal

- fired boilers are solid

- fueled boilers regulated by Rule 4352. As part of our proposed act ion on the 2007 Ozone Plan, we evaluated whether additional controls on solid

fueled boilers combined with other potential RACM would expedite attainment and proposed to find that they would not. For the purposes of that evaluation we assumed that all emis sions from
solid

- fuel boilers (including emissions from coal

- fired boilers) would be eliminated, a degree of control that we consider to be beyond RACM as it reflects a shutdown of all solid fuel

- fired boilers in the SJV. See Proposal T SD, section II.C.3. and 76 FR 57856.
Expansion of retrofit controls to non

- major sources : We are unable to evaluate this suggestion because AIR neither identifies the retrofit controls it is suggesting nor the non

- major source categories that it believes should be subject t o these retrofit controls. As discussed above, most of the District‘s rules already impose controls on non

- major sources. A commenter bears the burden of bringing to an agency's attention at least some particulars of an alleged defect in a rulemaking. See International Fabricare Inst. v. EPA , 972 F. 2d 384, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Evaluation of Potential to Advance Attainment
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 measures can advance attainment of the relevant standard by one year or more

. Thus to determine whether the SJV Ozone SIP meets this statutory requirement, we evaluated whether implementation of the potential RACM (including any missing section 182 RACT controls) identified by the commenter would expedite attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV.

110 We approved Rule 4320 into the California SIP on March 25, 2011. See 76 FR 16696. See Rule 4320 SJV Staff Report and A ir Division , EPA

– Region 9, ― Technical Support Doc ument for EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4320, Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters Greater th an 5.0 MMbtu/hr, ‖ August 19, 2010

.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 160 

### Attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV depends on significant
redu ctions in NO
x 

### emissions. Air quality modeling shows that no level of VOC reductions will bring about attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard in the SJV absent these NO
x 

### reductions and no reasonable level of VOC reductions will expedite attainment absent si gnificant NO
x 

### reductions. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 3; see also , section II.C.3. of the TSD.

Because VOC reductions will not advance attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards
unless substantial NO
x 

### reductions are also achieved , we have focused our e valuation on the potential RACM that reduce NO
x 

### emissions. Speci fically , we evaluated whether additional
emissions reduction s from the control measures suggested by the commenter ( e..g, requiring
RACT

- level controls on major source solid fuel

- fired boilers and prohibiting the use of pre

baseline emissions reductions credits as discussed in section III.C. below) and certain control measures not yet eligible for SIP credit , would provide sufficient additional reductions in 2023 to attain by June 15, 2024 with out reliance on the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology provision

. 111 

### We used 2023 rather than 2022 because more information is available on projected controlled emissions levels in that year. Fleet turnover from existing mobile source measures will provide an additional 10 tpd in NO
x 

### emissions reductions in the SJV between 2022 and 2023. Therefore, if we conclude that additional RACM measures would not provide sufficient reductions in 2023 to attain, we can also conclude that they would not provide sufficie nt emissions reductions in 2022.

As shown in Table III

- 1 below, even with additional co ntrols on source categories for which we have not yet approved rules meeting RACT and measures recommended by the commenters, the 2023 NO
x 

### emissions level in the SJV would still be well above the level needed for attainment. We conclude, therefore, that th e SJV 2007 8

- hour ozone SIP provides for RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1).

111 As an extreme ozone nonattainment area, SJV‘s statutory attainment date is as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15, 2024. 40 CFR § 51.903(a). The SIP as submitted demonstrates that the most expeditio us attainment date is June 15, 2024. See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 11

- 1. In order to attain by that date, the area must have all reductions needed for attainment in place by 2023. Thus, to advance attainment by one year, all reductions needed for attainment must be in place by 2022.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 161 

### T ABLE 

### III

- 1 

## Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing Additional Potential RACM on Expeditious Attainment of

the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

Comment NO
x 

### in tpd
2023

A Projected 2023 emissions levels with controls adopted prior to 2011. From TSD, Table A

- 3. 195

B Eliminate all emissions from solid fuel

fired boilers (including coal

- fired boilers). Solid fuel

- fired boilers are projected to emit 4.7 tpd of NO
x 

### in 2020. Data from CARB‘s on

- line CEPAM: 2009 Almanac at http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2009.php. EPA does not consider eliminating all emissions from solid

fuel fired boilers either technologically or economically feasible. - 5

C Potential emissions reductions from
TCM. See discussion in TSD section II.C.2.b. Potential reductions are likely overestimated. - 5

D Reductions from currently non

creditable measures (Rule 9510 and Rule 4702). Reductions from Rule 9510 are currently not creditable. See 76 FR 26609 (May 9, 2011). 1 

### Reduction s estimate from 2007 Ozone Plan, Table B

- 1. Rule 4702 (revised August 18, 2011) has not yet been approved by EPA but will reduce emissions in 2023. Reductions estimate from SJVUAPCD

, St aff Report on Rule 4702 (August 18, 2011) - 2.5

E Remaining enforceable commitments. Calculated by subtracting from CARB‘s 2023 commitment of 46 tpd NO
x 

### (Table D

- 6), the adjustment to baseline from State
and federal sources on Table D

- 8 (21.5 tpd) and emissions reductions from creditable State measures on Table D

- 10 (19.8 tpd) - 4.7Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 162 

### T ABLE 

### III

- 1 

## Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing Additional Potential RACM on Expeditious Attainment of

the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

Comment NO
x 

### in tpd
2023

F Additional controls for open burning. District Rule 4103 requires all technologically and economically feasible measures. See SJV 2009 RACT SIP final action; ―Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;" final rule, pre

- publication notice signed September 30, 2011 (Rule 4103); and EPA ‘s Rule 4103 TSD , June 201 1 0

G Additional controls for glass melting
furnaces District Rule 4354 requires all measures that are technologically and economically feasible for the SJV, See 76 FR 53640 (August 29, 2011) (final rule approving Rule 4354 as satisfying CAA section 182 RACT) 0

H Reductions from advanced boiler
controls EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate potential
emissions reduction s. 0

I Expansion of retrofit controls to non

major sources Commenter provided insufficient information for EPA to estimate potential emissions reduction s. 0

J Eliminating the use of pre

- baseline emissions reduction credits in the new source review program From 2007 Ozone Plan, p. D

- 3. EPA has not concluded that prohibiting the use of pre

- baseline ERCs is reasonable. - 20.5

K Emissions level with additional

measures Line A plus lines B through J 157

L Target emissions level for attainment From TSD, Table F

- 4. 141Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 163 

### T ABLE 

### III

- 1 

## Basic Evaluation of the Effect of Implementing Additional Potential RACM on Expeditious Attainment of

the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV

Comment NO
x 

### in tpd
2023

M Shortfall in emissions reductions needed
for attainment in 2023 (without reductions from new technology measures) Line K

– Line L 16

N Additional reductions needed to advance attainment to 2022 Reductions from fleet turnover expected to occur between 2022 and 2023 10

O Shortfall in emissions reductions needed for attainment in 2022 (without reductions from new technology measures) Line K + Line N 26

1 Reductions from Rule 4320 are also not creditable. These reductions, however, are already included in line A.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 164 

## D . Pre

- Baseline Emission Reduction Credits

Comment : AIR comments that the 2007 Ozone Plan allows for the use of 20.5 tons per day of pre

baseline emissions reduction credits (ERC) for NO
x 

### and 36.1 tpd of pre

- baseline ERCs for VOC (citing the 2007 Ozone Plan, p. D

- 3 )

. AIR asserts that the se pre

- baseline ERCs negate the offset benefits of the new source review program and represent an allowance for unmitigated growth in emissions. It argues that a llowing this growth is inconsistent with the Plan ‘ s claim that existing opportunities for controlling emissions do not exist and therefore it is necessary to rely on future technologies to attain the 8

- hour standard and undermines EPA ‘s ability to demonstrate compliance with the CAA

. It furt her argues that EPA cannot claim that the Plan provides for expeditious
attainment if it allow s this unmitigated emissions growth and EPA ‘ s RACM analysis is undermined because these avoided emissions coupled with reasonably available controls could be adeq uate to advance attainment by more than a year. Finally, AIR argues that i n order to comply with the RACM requirement of secti on 172(c)(1), EPA must evaluate what additional reductions would be
needed i f the combined impact of these VOC and NO
x 

### emissions w ere avoided.

Response : Under applicable EPA policy, 112 

### a state may allow the use of pre

- baseline emission reduction credits in its new source review program only if the se ERCs are explicitly included and quantified as growth in the future year inventories u sed to demonstrate RFP and/or attainment and

a re otherwise creditable. In order to show that the ERCs are included and quantified as growth, the state must show that the ERCs are contained in the current applicable approved RFP plans as growth and all appr oved attainment demonstrations as emissions in the air. A state may choose to show that the magnitude of pre

- base year ERCs (in absolute tonnage) is included in the growth factor, or the state may choose to show that it was not included in the growth facto r, but is in addition to anticipated general growth.

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District estimated the amount of ERC s (both pre

- and post

- the
baseline year of 2002 in absolute tonnage ) expected to be used over the duration of the Plan, conservatively as sumed that all these ERC s would be pre

- baseline, and showed that these ERC are included as growth in the projected inventories underlying the attainment and RFP demonstrations.
See 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix D, pages D

- 1 to D

- 3. In addition, to assure that pre

- baseline ERC s do not exceed the anticipated growth estimates, the District capped the use of these ERC s both over the entire time period of the P lan and in each individual RFP period. Id at D

- 33.
Because the use of these pre

- baseline ERCs is anticipated in the Plan‘s attainment and RFP demonstrations and we have concluded that these demonstrations meet applicable CAA requirements including the requirement to show expeditious at tainment, we do not agree with AIR‘s assertion that their use is ―unmitigated‖ and ― negate s the offset benefits of the new source review

program .‖
We also do not agree with the AIR‘s assertion that a llowing this emissions growth is
in consistent with the Plan ‘ s claim that opportunities for controlling emissions do not currently exist and therefore the area must rely on development of new technologies to attain. This growth comes entirely from sources that are subject to the District‘s new source review pro gram. As a condition of

112 Se e General Pr eamble at 13553 and memorandum , John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to David Howekamp, Director, Air and Toxics Division, EPA Region 9, ―Response to Request for
Guidance on Use of Pre

- 1990 ERC's and Adjusting for RACT a t Time of Use,‖ August 26, 1994.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 165 

### being permitted to increase their emissions under this NSR program, these sources must install technologies that meet the most stringent emissions limitations that have been achieved in practice by comparable sources (that is, they must meet the lowest achievable emissions rate as defined in CAA section 171(3)). Thus, these emissions limitations already reflect the most stringent technologies that are currently available. To further reduce these emissions would require either
restric tions on economic growth or the development of new or improved technologies.
Finally, we disagree with AIR‘s claims that the 2007 Ozone Plan cannot provide for expeditious attainment if it allow s this growth in emissions and that the RACM analy sis is
und ermined because these ― avoid ed emission s coupled with reasonably available controls could be adequate to advance attainment by more than a year. ‖ We have evaluated the effect on the Plan‘s expeditious attainment demonstration of eliminating this anticipate d growth and implementing the additional measures that AIR asserts elsewhere in its comments are reasonably available. As shown
in Table III

- 1above, even these steps do not provide the additional emissions reductions needed for attainment in 2023, let alon e advance attainment to 2022. The area would still require significant reductions from new technologies to attain.



## E. CAA section 182(e)(5) New Technology Provision

Comment: AIR states that California‘s reliance on ― black box‖ measures in the SJV 2007 8

- hour
Ozone SIP fails to meet the requi rements and intent of the Clean Air Act by allowing the State and District to defer their responsibility to attain the 8

- hour ozone standards. AIR argues that there are three problems with how the State and District ar e using the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology provision.

First, AIR argues that i t is arbitrary for EPA to approve a new technology provision of 80 tons per day of NO
x 

### reductions or 5 9 percent of the reductions needed for attainment given its lack
of definition

. Second, AIR asserts that s ection 182(e)(5) is intended to address new technologies that will develop over time but that in California, ― new technologies alone will not sufficiently reduce pollution t o attain federal air quality standa rds .‖ Citing a description in the Proposal TSD (at page 81) of a potential measure described by CARB as ―prioritizing federal transportation funding to support air quality goals

, ‖ AIR argue s that ―[t]his example clearly fails to meet all the criteria requi red for Black Box use, ‖ and that while ― tying air quality to transportation planning ‖ is important for attainment, the black box cannot be used as a basis for not requiring implementation of ―existing‖ strategies such as increased public transit that do no t require the development of new technologies

. Third, AIR states that the section 182(e)(5) commitments are vague and insufficient and that EPA cannot approve the attainment demonstration ―unless the Section 182(e)(5) measures comply with the CAA.‖ Citing both CAA section 182(e)(5) and EPA‘s January 8, 1997 final rule approving
the 1

- hour ozone plan for several California nonattainment areas (62 FR 1150, 1179), AIR assert s that the new technology measures must : (1) contain sufficient definition; (2) contain schedules for development of the new technologies; (3) contain commitments for funding; (4) depend on development of new technologies; and (5) include an enforceable commitment to develop and adopt necessary contingency measures. AIR assert s that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP ―only attempts to comply with requirement number (5),‖ that the generalized discussion in the SIP provides littleDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 166 

### assurance of CARB‘s ability to develop these measures, and that approval of these measures is therefore arbitrary and ca pricious.

Response : First, we disagree with the commenters‘ contention that EPA‘s approval of the SIP is arbitrary because of the amount of emissions reduction s attributed to the new technology provision or because they are undefined. As an initial matter, we note that the commenters‘ assertion about
the 59 percent of the emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV th at are attributed to the new technologies provision is not correct. 113 

### The correct percentage of the needed NO
x 

### emissions reductions attributed to the new technology provision in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP is 1 2 percent as explained further below.

The CAA does not provide a quantitative limit on the extent to which the attainment demonstration for an extreme ozone nonattainment area may rely on the new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5). As we explained in our proposed rule, 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 de monstrates that: (1) such provisions are not necessary to achieve incremental reductions required during the first 10 years after the effective date of designation for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards, and (2) the State has
submitted enforceable commitment s to submit adopted contingency measures meeting certain criteria no later than three years be fore proposed implementation of the new technology measures.
See 76 FR 57846, 57854. EPA guidance on section 182(e)(5) states, among other things, that the SIP sh ould show that the long

- term measure(s) cannot be fully developed and adopted by the submittal date for the attainment demonstration and that the measures approved under 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.
The majority of the emissions reductions in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP are attributed to already adop ted and near

- term measures. See 76 FR 57846, 57850

- 61

. Our summary of SJV‘s 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration in the proposed rule shows that the area needs to reduce emissions from 2002 levels by a total of 424 tpd of NO
x 

### and 116 tpd of VOC to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards by June 15, 2024. See 76 FR 57846, 5785 9 (Table 10) (values rounded to the ones place). Of these needed reductions, approximately 88 percent of the NO
x 

### reductions and all of the VOC reductions are attributed to already adopt ed measures or commitments to adopt and implement existing technologies by 2014. S ee 76 F R 57846, 57859 (Table 10) 57851, and 57853 (Tables 2 and 5) (identifying CARB and District measures recently adopted or scheduled for near

term consideration). These measures include all reasonably available control measures and generally represent the most stringent air pollution control requirements for stationary, area, and
mobile sources nation wide. This leaves just 12 percent of the needed NO
x 

### reductions and none of the needed VOC reductions to be met through new technologi es under CAA section 182(e)(5). See 76 FR 57846, 57859 ( Table 10 )

.

113 It appears that the commenters overestimated the percentage of emissions reductions attributed to the new technology provision in the SIP by calculating the amount of needed reductions without taking into account the
red uctions attributed to baseline measures . The 59 percent figure represents the percent contribution of the new technology provision to the new emissions reductions (that is, the non

- baseline emissions reductions) in the SIP. See TSD, Table F

- 2.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 167 

### Given the demonstrated need for emissions reductions from new and improved control techniques needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour o zone standards in the SJV, we believe it is reasonable for the State to attribute this amount of emissions reductions to the new technology provision.
However, as we stated in our proposed rule, we expect the amount and relative proportion of
reductions fr om measures scheduled for long

- term adoption under section 182(e)(5) should decrease in any future SIP update, and EPA will not approve any future SIP revisions with an increase in the 182(e)(5) reductions for 2023 without a convincing showing that the tec hnologies relied upon in the

near

- term rules are infeasible or ineffective in achieving emissions reductions in the near

- term. See 76 FR 57846, 57856. Moreover, to the extent new modeling performed in any subsequent SIP revision demonstrates that there is an increase in the year 2023 carrying capacity for VOC and NO
x 

### , this change may not be used to decrease the amount of emissions reductions scheduled to be achieved by any existing technology measures from the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP unless CARB
or the Di strict make the convincing showing described above.

Second, we disagree with AIR that CAA s ection 182(e)(5) allows only for plan provisions that rely on ― new technologies ‖ and that the District must adopt additional ―existing strategies‖ that do not rely o n new technologies. CAA section 182(e)(5) allows for approval of extreme area plan provisions that ―anticipate development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control technologies,‖ which EPA interprets to include ― those that may anticipat e future technological developments as well as those that may require complex analyses and decision making and coordination among a number of government agencies.‖ See 57 FR 13498, 13524. Thus, in addition to plan provisions that rely on ―new technologies,‖ section 182(e)(5) contemplates provisions that are as of yet undefined because they require, for example, time for State and loc al agencies to evaluate complex techn ical information and to seek public participation in their regulatory processes.
AIR correctly notes that EPA‘s TSD identified ―prioritiz[ation of] federal transportation funding to support air quality goals‖ among a number of potential long

- term strategi es that CARB had identified for further consideration ( see Proposal TSD at 81, citing 2007 State Strategy, pp. 55

- 56), but it does not describe any specific control measure that such budgetary decisions could support and that is reasonably available for cu rrent implementation in the SJV

. Likewise, although
AIR assert s generally that ―increased transit‖ and other ―existing strategies‖ should be required as control measures because these do not require the development of new technologies, they have not
identi fied any particular control measure that the State should be obligated to include in its plan for
attai ning the 1997 8

- hour ozone standards in the SJV. CARB and the District have adopted all of the control measures for NO
x 

### and VOC that are ― reasonably avai lable ‖ within the meaning of CAA section 172(c)(1) for current implementation in the SJV and have submitted enforceable commitments to adopt additional measures achieving specific amounts of emissions reduction s by specific years. See 76 FR 57846, 57850

- 57 854. These measur es are not sufficient, however, to achieve the significant amounts of NO
x 

### and VOC reductions necessary to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV by June 15, 2024. Absent new information about additional control
measures that are cos t

- effective and technically feasible for current implementation in the area, we believe it is reasonable to allow the State and District time to develop additional control measures based on new or improved control technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5).
Third, we disagree with AIR that the SIP‘s section 182(e)(5) provisions are vague and insufficient. As discussed in our proposed rule, CARB has submitted enforceable commitments toDraft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 168 

### achieve specific amounts of NO
x 

### and VOC reductions by 2023 through the deve lopment of new or improved control techn ologies under CAA section 182(e)(5). The total tonnage commitment in the
SJV is for 8 1 tpd NO
x 

### . See 76 FR 57 846 , 578 54

- 578 55 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 2 1

. With respect to the requirement for contingency measures in CAA section 182(e)(5)(B), we explained in our proposed rule that CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions contain the State‘s
enforceable commitment ― to develop, adopt, and submit contingency measures by 2020 if advanced technology measures do not achieve planned reductions ‖ (76 FR 57 846 , 578 55, referencing CARB
Resolution 11

- 22, July 21, 2011 ), and in a letter dated November 18, 2011 to EPA Region 9, CARB confirmed that EPA‘s understanding of this enforc eable commitment is correct. See letter

, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 9

, November 18, 2011.
In addition, as explained in our proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 578 55 ), the SJV 2007 8

- hour
Ozone SIP identifies numerous potential measures currently under consideration as part of the long

term strategy, and CARB has committed to submit a SIP revision by 2020 that will identify the additional strategies and implemen ting agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by the beginning of the 2023 ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A

- 8; see also the August 29, 2011 Goldstene letter which describ es California‘s climate change programs, clean car technologie s, programs to accelerate hybrids and plug

- in technologies, greenhouse gas emissions
reduction targets for passenger vehicles, and the District ‘s efforts to shift goods movement to lower

emission alternatives and to reduce emissions caused by electricity a nd natural gas consumption in residential, industrial, and institutional settings ). We note also that CARB has stated its intent to convene annual strategy meetings with the South Coast and SJV Districts and EPA to discuss progress in the development of it s new technology measures, and to secure resources for continuing research and development of new technologies. See August 29, 2011 Goldstene le tter; see also 2009 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25

- 27.
Finally, AIR references CAA section 182(e)(5) and EPA‘s final rule approving an ozone SIP previously submitted by California (62 FR 1150, 1179) 114 

### in support of its assertion that the long

term strategy must satisfy five ―requirements,‖ of which, commenters contend, the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP addresses o nly one. We disagree with this characterization of both the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(5) and the provisions in the SIP.
As explained above and in our proposed rule, EPA interprets the Act to allow EPA to approve the State‘s conceptual new technol ogy provisions and credit them toward the attainment
demonstration if the stat e makes the required commitment to submit contingency measures , which then must be submitted to EPA no later than 3 years before proposed implementation and EPA concludes that the measures are not needed to achieve the first 10 years of required rate of progress reductions

. See 76 FR 57846, 57854

. The five ―requirements‖ for approval of new technology

114 We not e that although this final action included EPA‘s approval of new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) as part of California‘s SIP for the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast area, this prior rulemaking action is not germane to today‘s action on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP. We assume that the commenters intended to refer, instead, to the source of the five criteria that EPA has recommended for consideration in evaluating new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5), which is the General Pre amble at 13524

.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 169 

### provisions that commenters reference are not statutory or regulatory requirements but recommended
criteria. See General Preamble at 13524. 115



### As also explained in the proposed rule, CARB and the District have demonstrated a clear need for additional time to fully develop and adopt the long

- term measures under consideration and have met the statutory requirements fo r approval of such conceptual measures under CAA section 182(e)(5). See 76 57846 57854

- 57855. T he General Preamble at 13524 recommends that a SIP relying on new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) identify all of the specific long

term measures the State intends to adopt, contain a schedule outlining the specific steps leading to final development and adoption, and contain commitments from the agencies that would be involved in developing and implementing these measures, in addition to satisfying the statutory criteria. However, a s discussed in our proposed rule and above, both the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 Ozone Plan provide list s of the types of technologies and measures that they are pursuing to achieve the emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8

- hour ozone standard in the SJV

. See 76 FR 57846, 57854

- 57855 and TSD, section II.E.2. ; see also, 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7, 8, and 11; 2007 State Strategy, pp. 54

- 57; 2009 S tate Strategy Update, p. 25 ; and 2011 Ozone Plan Update, Appendix A. The State has also committed to share the results of its efforts with the public through Board meetings, workshops and other means. See 2009 State Strategy Update , p. 25; see also

, letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 29, 2011

. Finally, the State has committed to work to secure resources for continuing research and development and to develop schedules for moving from research to implementation. Id. We find that the State and District have adequately addressed the policy criteria in the General Preamble given the significant emissions reductions needed to attain the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV and the type of sources (i.e., mobile sources) for which technology must be developed, tested, and deployed in order to achieve these reductions. EPA commits to do its share to support the needed research and development activities of CARB and the District

. Comme nt : AIR asserts that the SJV already violates the 1

- hour ozone standard and failed to attain that standard by November 15, 2010 (citing 76 FF 56694 (September 14, 2011)) is ―particularly‖ relevant to the approval of the new technology provisions in the 8

- hour ozone plan because, according to AIR, the District and CARB ―relied heavily‖ on new technology measures in its previous plans for the 1

- hour ozone standard and these commitments have not been met. AIR further asserts that EPA cannot reasonably rely on the continued use of the new technologies provision because, according to AIR, the District‘s and CARB‘s track record for using this approach has not resulted in the pollution reductions committed to in the SJV 2004 1

- hour attainment plan.

115 EPA‘ s General Preamble states that in order to rely on ―new technology provisions‖ under CAA section 182(e)(5), a SIP must satisfy the following criteria: (1) identify all measures, including the long

- term measure(s) for which additional time would be needed for development and adoption; (2) show that the long

- term measure(s) cannot be fully developed and adopted by the submittal date for the attainment demonstration and contain a schedule outlining the steps leading to final development and adoption of the measure(s); (3) contain commitments from those agencies that would be involved in developing and implementing the schedule for the measure; (4) contain a commitment to develop and submit contingency measures (in addition to those otherw ise required for the area) that could be implemen ted if the measure is not developed or if it fails to achieve the anticipated reductions; and (5) not rely on the new technology measures to meet any emissions reductions requirements within the first 10 yea rs after enactment. See 57 FR 13498, 13524 (April 16, 1992). We note that this language is non

- binding guidance although it is phrased in mandatory terms.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 170 

### Response : EPA is acting today on the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, which the State submitted to meet the requirements of part D, title I of the CAA for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard s . Neither the CAA‘s planning requirements related to attainment of the 1

- hour ozone stand ard nor the State‘s submittals to meet the Act‘s requirements for that prior standard are germane to our action on the
SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP under C AA section 110(k). Additionally, nothing in section 182(e)(5) of the CAA or our implementing regulations requires EPA to take into account the success or failure of a prior plan for a different ambient air quality standard in approving extreme area plan provisions that meet the requirements of CAA section 182(e)(5) for the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard s. EPA‘s proposed rule to determine that the SJV failed to attain the 1

- hour ozone standard by its applicable attainment date (76 FR 56694, September 14, 2011), which commenters reference, likewise has no bearing on our action on the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP under CAA section 110(k).
We disagree with AIR‘s assertions that the District and CARB relied heavily on new technology measures in its previous plans for the 1

- hour ozone standards and that these commitments have not been met. The District relied on emissions reductions from new technology measures only in its 2004 Ozone SIP. 116 

### Reductions from new technology measures in the 2004 Ozone SIP accounted for less than 4 percent of the overall reductions in that SIP‘s attainment demonstration; and the District subseq uently showed that it had adopted sufficient measures to achieved these reductions. See 74 FR 33933, 33937 (July 14, 2009).
Finally, we disagree with commenters‘ argument that EPA must direct CARB to ―extract from the black box needed reductions they know will not come from future technologies, reduce the overall size of the black box to a reasonable level and better define where the remaining black box reductions are expected to come from.‖ It is not possible at this point in time to know that certain
emis sions reduction s will not come from future technologies, and we do not believe it is reasonable to require the State to reduce the amount of emissions reduction s attributed to the long

- term strategy by either implementing measures or incremental reductions beyond those otherwise mandated by
the Act or developing measures based on control techniques not yet identified or commercially available for implementation in the area. As explained above, the State has met the statutory criteria for approval of its long

- term strategy under CAA section 182(e)(5).

116 Th e 2004 Ozone SIP is the ―Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan,‖ adopted by the SJVUAPCD on October 8,
2 004 and submitted to EPA by CARB on November 15, 2004 and the relevant portions of the CARB‘s ―2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan‖ adopted on October 23, 2003 and submitted to EPA on January 9, 2004

. As initially submitted, the attainment demonstration in the 2004 Ozone SIP included 5 tpd of NO
x and 5 tpd of VOC emissions reductions from new technology measures (referred to as ―long

- term measures‖ in 2004 Ozone SIP).
See CAR B, ―Staff Report, Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan for Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley,‖ September 28, 2004, Table E

- 2, p. 5. These reductions were part of the District‘s emissions r eductions commitments. Id. However, prior to EPA‘s action on the 2004 Ozone SIP, the District adopted and submitted rules that provide d sufficient emissions reductions to meet its all its commitments including its commitments for reductions from new technology

measures. See 74 FR 33933, 33937 (July 14, 2009). As a result, EPA did not approve any element of th e 2004 SIP under the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology provision. See 75 FR 10420, 10436

- 37 (March 8, 2010). The 2004 Ozone SIP also included commitments by CARB to achieve 15 tpd of VOC and 20 tpd of NO
x emissions reductions in the SJV by 2010; likewis e, these commitments were approved as meeting the requirements of 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and not CAA section 182(e)(5). Id.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 171 

### Comment: AIR states that the commitment by CARB to submit a revision to EPA by 2020 does not provide assurance that the new technology provisions will work. Citing Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) v. EPA , 632 F.3d 584, 592 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (d iscussing the triennial review process in California law and the triennial inventory requirement under the federal Clean Air Act), AIR argues that delaying a revision until 2020 and not requiring more frequent updates is arbitrary and capricious because bo th California law and the CAA contain requirements for updating clean air plans more frequently than every nine or ten years. AIR also argues that delaying submittal of an update until 2020 is also arbitrary and capricious because this is too late to allow time to remedy any problems that may need CARB regulations, transportation infrastructure and other technology developments that will require more than three years to develop.

Response : As discus sed in our proposed approval, CARB has committed to achiev e all of the emissions reductions attributed to the section 182(e)(5) conceptual new technology measures by the attainment year of 2023, and has satisfied the section 182(e)(5) criteria for approval of its new technology provisions by demonstrating that th e measures are not relied on for RFP and committing to submit adopted contingency measures by 2020 to be implemented should the anticipated reductions from new or improved technologies not occur. In addition, as discussed above, CARB
has stated its intent to continue the State‘s ambitious clean technology development programs and has committed to public outreach as well as annual meetings to update EPA on its progress. Although we recognize the commenters‘ concerns about the absence of any specific mileston es or updates prior to 2020, the Act does not mandate that the SIP include specific enforceable actions during this period.
The triennial review process cited in AIR is a California state law requirement applicable to air quality plans developed pursuant t o the California Clean Air Act to meet California‘s ambient air quality standards. See California Health and Safety Code Section 40924(b) and 40925(a). 117 

### The CAA triennial inventory requirement cited in that decision is an emissions inventory requirement i n CAA section 182(a)(3), which requires States with ozone nonattainment areas to submit revised inventories every three years until redesignation to attainment. See also 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Neither the review under the California CAA or the federal CAA applies to our evaluation of new technology provisions under CAA section 182(d)(5)

.



## F. CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) Requirements

Comment : AIR asserts that EPA‘s interpretation of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) in the proposed rule, i.e., that compliance with t his requirement is shown if an area demonstrates that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year, fails to comply with the decision by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA , 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011) and is also inconsistent with EPA policy in the General Preamble (57 FR at 13523). According to AIR, the General Preamble states that section 182(d)(1)(A) requires SIPs to contain ―specific, enforceable measures selected by the State... 1) adequate to hold vehicle emissions within the ceiling‖ sufficient to offset growth in emissions from VMT growth, and 2) ―sufficient to allow total area emissions to comply with the RF P and attainment requirements‖ and that EPA‘s review of a SIP revision will ―assess the adequacy of the growth

- offsetting measures

117 The triennial reporting requirement is described in SJV‘s 2007 Triennial Progress Report which can be found in Appendix E of the 2007 Ozone Plan.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 172 

### against all three criteria specified by the [CAA].‖ Finally, citing the legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (H .R. No. 101

- 490, part 1, 101st Cong. 2d Sess., at 242 ), A IR asserts that EPA has improperly construed section 182(d)(1)(A) to not require offsets for the emissions increases attributable to the increase in VMT since 1990 and claims that d espite this ― clear legisl ative language contradicting EPA ‘ s position, EPA is allowing one of the most polluted air basins in nation with severe transportation issues to be exempt from important transportation control requirements .‖

Response : S ection 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requir es that nonattainment areas classified as severe or
extreme submit transportation control strategies and trans portation control measures (TCM ) sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or the number of vehicle trips, and to provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP requirement. This CAA section also requires that states choose and implement
such measures as are specified in section 108(f), to the extent needed to demon strate attainment.
As we explained in both the TSD and the proposed rule, EPA believes that it is appropriate to treat the three required elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth (―VMT offset‖) , attainment of the RFP reduction, a nd attainment of the ozone standard) as separable and we have interpret ed the first element of this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year. See TSD se ction II.H.1. and 76 FR 57846, 57862. See also, Brief for the Respondents, Association of Irritated Residents, e t a l. v. EPA , and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA

, Nos. 09

- 71383 & 09

- 71404, 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals at pp. 47

- 61 ; s ee also EPA‘s responses to similar comments in our final actions on the South Coast 1

- hour ozone SIP, 74 FR 10176, 10179

- 10180 (March 10, 2009) and the SJV 1

- hour ozone SIP, 75 FR 10420,10433 (March 8, 2010) and TSD at section VI.H. 118 

### T his interpretation is consistent with the language in EPA‘s General Preamble at 13522 ( first column, 2 nd 

### full paragraph ) : ― If projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are not higher than dur ing the ozone season the year before, given the con trol measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is satisfied. ‖

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, CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires s tates 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. See Association of Irritated Residents, e t a l. v. EPA

, Docket Nos. 09

- 71383 and 09

- 71404 (consolidated), Docket Entry 41

- 1

, Petition for Panel Rehearing

. At the time of our Septemb er propos ed rule , the Ninth Circuit had not yet issued its mandate
in the AIR case, and EPA had 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. We stated in our propos ed
rule that if the court denied the Agency‘s petition for rehearing and issued its mandate before EPA
issued a final rule on the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, then we anticipated that we would not be able to finalize approval of the SJV 2007 8

- hour Oz one SIP with respect to the first element (i.e.,

118 Se e Final Technical Support Document for the Action on the San Joaquin Valley Extreme 1

- Hour Ozone Standard Plan and San Joaquin Portion of the 2003 State Strategy, Office of Air Planning, Air Division, Environmental Protection Agen cy

– Region 9, December 11, 2009.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 173 

### offsetting emissions growth) of section 182(d)(1)(A). See 76 FR 57846, 57863. Therefore, we proposed in the alternative to disapprove the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP with respect to the first
element of sectio n 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. Id. Because the court has still not issued its mandate, for the reasons provided in our proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 57862

- 57863),we are approving the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) consistent with our long

- standing interpretation of this provision.

Comment : AIR asserts that EPA has also failed to assess the adequacy of the SIP‘ s compliance with the requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) that the SIP provide adequate enforceable control measures ―to allow total area emissions to comply with RFP and attainment requirements.‖ AIR argues that, because the area h as not adopted sufficient enforceable control measures to provide for attainment (citing to its comments that the attainment demonstration is not approvable because, inter alia , measures relied on in that demonstration were not in the SIP), this provision must be met
and EPA m ust direct the State/District to adopt the additional measures needed for attainment, either as TCMs to reduce motor vehicle emissions, or as controls on other source categories so that total emissions reductions provide for attainment

. Response : CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the State to ―submit a revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures ...to attain reductions in motor vehicle emissions as necess ary, in combination with other emissions
reduction requirements of [title 1, part D, subpart 2], to comply with the requirements of [sections 182] (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B)‖ and ―to consider measures specified in section 108(f)... and to choose from among and implement such measures as necessary to demonstrat e attainment.‖

We have determined that the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP meets the R FP requirements in sections 182(b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) and demonstrates attainment consistent with the subpart 2 requirements and thus also meets the requirements of section 18 2(d)(1)(A) to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs as necessary to demonstrate RFP and attainment. See 76 FR 57846, 57863 and TSD, section II.H.3; s ee also

, TSD, section III.A.2. (responding to comments on the approvability of the baseline emis sions inventory and the attainment demonstration). The SIP also includes documentation that the state considered the transportation control measures listed in CAA section 108(f), evaluated their effectiveness in contributing to expeditious attainment, and concluded that they would not. See 2007 Ozone SIP, appendix D; 76 FR 57846, 57852 and 57863 and TSD, sections II.B.3.b. and II.H.2.
We disagree with AIR‘s summary of the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)‘s requirements related to RFP and attainment. This specific s ection does not require that the SIP provide ― adequate
enforceable control measures  ̳ to allow total area emissions to comply with RFP and attainment requirements ‘‖ but rather it requires that the state adopt enforceable transportation strategies and
TCM as necessary in combination with other emissions reduction requirement of subpart 2 to demonstrate RFP and to implement TCMs as necessary to demonstration attainment. Thus, if other SIP provisions provide for RFP and attainment consistent with applicable CAA requirements (including, in this case, the provisions of CAA section 182(e)(5)), then the state has no obligation under section 182(d)(1)(A) to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs for RFP and attainment purposes.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 174 

## G. Emissions Reductions from SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 “Confined Animal Facilities”

In our September 16, 2011 proposed rule on the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP, the only

propos ed action related to District Rule 4570, Confined Animal Facilities (CAF) was to approve a specific emissions reductio ns credit for the rule. See TSD, Table D

- 5. In a separate propos ed rule published on September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56706), we proposed to approve revised Rule 4570 119 

### into the California SIP and to find that the rule met RACT as required by CAA section 182(b)(3) . AIR submitted comments on both the proposed action on the 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP and incorporated by reference its comment letter on the Rule 4570 proposed approval. 120 

### We incorporate by reference our response to AIR‘s comments on pro posed approval of Rule 4570 to the extent that the comments are germane to our approval of the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP. 121 

### Below, we provide responses to the AIR‘s comments that are germane to the appropriate emissions reductions to attribute to Rule 4570 in the SIP‘s attainment and RFP demonstrations.

Comment AIR claims that many of the emission control measures listed in Rule 4570's menu s are standard operating procedure for dairies and that, in many cases, dairies will be able to comply with Rule 4570 without making any changes. AIR gives two examples. In its first example, AOR argues that reductions will often be counted for a dairy t hat complies with measure 4.1(A) (1) by feeding its cows according to NRC guidelines even though it is not possible to determine if the dairy was
alr eady following the guidelines. AIR also claims there is no evidence that feeding cows according

t o NRC guidelin es reduces VOCs. In its second example, AIR states that measure 4.1(A)(2) requires TMR to be within three feet of a feedlane fence and argues that there is no evidence that standard industry practice allows feed to go beyond three feet or that dairy operat ors do not already ―push up‖ the feed to ensure that the cows can actually reach it. AIR further argues that dairies already have an incentive to not allow expensive feed to lie beyond the reach of the cows. AIR also
claims that the measure assumes that co ws are not continually consuming the feed, thereby exposing previously covered feed containing VOC to air flow and evaporation. AIR further notes that the baseline emissions inventory measures emissions from feed in the feedlane at 31⁄2 feet, and
that Di stri ct staff contend that this six inch reduction would reduce the surface area and the flux rate of the feed significantly; however, AIR argues that the District‘s method does not yield a decrease in flux rate, only exposed surface area.

Response : SJVUAPCD b elieves and we concur that Rule 4570 will significan tly reduce emissions. Simply because a menu option is commonly used, does not mean that every facility uses it or uses it consistently.

119 EPA‘s proposed approval of Rule 4570 as amended October 21, 2010. We had previously issued a limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 4570 as amended June 18, 2009. See 75 FR 207 9 (January 14, 2010).

120 Letter, Bren t Newell, General Counsel, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, October 14, 2011, ―Comments on Proposed Action on Rule 4570; Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2011

- 0735)‖ with enclosures.

121 These responses are found in ―Revisions to the California State Imple mentation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District;‖ final rule, signed (December 13, 2011). (Final approval of Rule 4570).Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 175 

### The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) raised a similar argument in response to our action on the 2009 version of Rule 4570

. 122 

### We also received a similar comment
from another commenter in response to our 2005 proposal to approve SJVUAPCD Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices (CMP) for ag ricultural sources of PM 10 

### . The commenter
claimed that the emissions reduction s estimated to be achieved by Rule 4550 were inaccurate and
inflated because the estimate double

- counted emissions reduction s already being achieved from

pr actices already in common use by gro wers. In response, we explained, ‖it was understood that some agricultural sites may have been employing practices not required by regulation at that time, and that these existing practices may not have been accounted fo r in the emission inventory. Rule 4550 makes these practices mandatory and federally enforceable, allowing the District to take credit
for the emissions reduction s....‖ 123



### Regarding the first example, as we note above in our response to comment # 3, the District‘s
emissions reduction estimate for feeding based on NRC guidelines was based on several research studies showing that changes in animals‘ diets reduce VOC emissions and that the 10% reduction was at the low end of the range of effectiveness s een in this research.
Regarding the second example, during past site visits, SJVUAPCD staff has observed feed lying more than three feet away from cows at dairies. 124 

### EPA staff has also seen feed lying more than three feet away from the feedlane fence during site visits. Although there is financial incentive for dairies to contain expensive feed close to the cows, dairies respond to this incentive in varied degrees. It is reasonable to assume that including this measure in Rule 4570 will increase implementati on of this activity. As for AIR ‘s statement that cows continuously expose the feed containing VOCs to air flow and evaporation, we note that recent research indicates that TMR will emit VOCs only in the first few hours after exposure to oxygen. 125 

### The Distri ct‘s staff report only claims that reductions in the surface area of the feed will reduce emissions, not that reductions in the surface area of the feed will reduce the flux rate. 126 

### Based on the research available to date, it is
reasonable to conclude that reductions in the surface area of the feed exposed to air flow will reduce emissions.

Comment : AIR comments that the approval of attainment demonstration in the 2007 8

- hour ozone
SIP is arbitrary and capricious because it relies on reductions from Rule 45 70 ―Confined Animal Facilities‖ which AIR claims are unsubstantiated and lack support

. AIR specifically notes that the emissions reductions from the rule assume a 10 percent control efficiency from the mitigation method and argues that this number has no s cientific support.

122 August 31, 2009 Letter from Brent Newell, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, to Frances Wicher and Andrew Steckel, EPA.

123 71 FR 7683, February 14, 2006.

124 See December 5, 2011 email communication from Sheraz Gill, SJVUAPCD, to Sona Chilingaryan and Nancy Levin, EPA.

125 F. Montes et al., Temperature and Air Velocity Effects on Ethanol Emission from Corn Silage with the Characteristics of an Exposed Silo Face, A tmospheric Environment 44 (2010) 1987

- 1995.

126 SJVUAPCD, Final Staff Report, Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities) , October. 21, 2010, Appendix B, p. B

- 11.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 176 

### Response : EPA believes that the District used the best information available at the time it adopted Rule 4570 and applied that information reasonably to estimate emissions reduction s. The District explained, for example, its conservati ve approach in estimating emissions reduction s for many o f the mitigation measures at 10 percent

. 127



### CRPE made a similar comment regarding EPA‘s proposed action on the 2004 Ozone Plan (which relied on emissions reductions from the 2009 version of Rule 4570 ) , and s pecifically in regards to reductions attributed to Menu option A.1, feeding animals according to National Research Council (NRC) Guidelines. 128 

### In response, we noted that the District‘s emissions
reduction estimate was based on several research studie s showing that changes in animals‘ diets reduce VOC emissions and that the 10 percent reduction was at the low end of the range of effectiveness seen in this research. See 75 FR 10420, 10435, March 8, 2010. We also noted that CRPE raised this issue in Stat e court litigation on Rule 4570, and the court ruled in favor of the District. 129 

### The District‘s emissions reduction s analysis for the 2010 version of the Rule relies on the same research as the 2009 version of the rule. While the District has made reasonabl e assumptions using the currently available science, we expect the District to continue revising emission estimates and control strategies as more research becomes available. In fact, we note that this rule revision is, in large part, a response to new res earch showing silage to be a greater source of VOC than previously thought when the 2009 version of the rule was written.

Comment : AIR comments that the approval of attainment demonstration in the 2007 8

- hour ozone
SIP is arbitrary and capricious because it relies on emissions reductions from Rule 4570, which AIR
claims is unenforceable for the reasons discussed in AIR ‘s comment letter on EPA‘s proposed approval of Rule 4570. These reasons are Rule 4570 does not require records be made available to the pub lic , fail s to require the operator to affirm the truth of the records or to report a violation to
the District or EPA , and does not require adequate monitoring for two of controls measures in the rule.

Response : As stated in the technical support document supporting the September 14, 2011 proposed approval of Rule 4570 (revised October 18, 2010), EPA found that Rule 4570 was sufficiently clear and contained adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and other provisions to determine compl iance with the rule. 130 

### We provide further ela boration on that finding here.

Consistent with CAA section 110(a) and relevant guidance, we reviewed Rule 4570 as we review other SIP submitted rules, to ensure that the rule language makes clear who must do wha t by when. EPA notes that it did evaluate the enforceability of Rule 4570 according to the criteria in the policy documents identified in our propos ed rule , in particular, ―Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,‖ EPA, Ma y 24, 1988 (the Bluebook), ―Guidance Document for Correcting Commo n VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies,‖ EPA Region 9, August 21,

127 Id

.

128 Letter, Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center on Race, Pov erty & the Environment, August 31, 2009, ―Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1

- Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2008

- 0693).‖

129 Associati on o

f Irritated Residents v. SJVUAPCD (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 535, 553

- 554.

130 Air D ivision, EPA Region 9

, ― Technical Support Document EPA‘s Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District‘s Rule 4570, Confined Animal Facilities,‖ August 2011, p. 3.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 177 

### 2001 (the Little Bluebook), and memorandum , J. Craig Potter, Thomas L. Adams, and Francis S. Blake, ―Review of State Implementati on Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency.‖ September 23, 1987 (―Potter memo‖). EPA found that Rule 4570 sets forth clear standards as well as adequate recordkeeping and monit oring and therefore meets the general criteria
for enforcea bility imposed by the CAA and relevant guidance and regulations.
National policy and precedent for implementing CAA section 110(a)‘s enforceability requirement emphasizes that SIP requirements must be clear. See , for example, Potter memo‘s summary of enf

orceability criteria at page 3 (―Your review should ensure that the rules in question are clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the regulated sources,‖) and conclusion at page 4 (―SIP revisions should be written clearly, with explicit langu age to implement their intent.‖)

. EPA notes that the commenter did not identify any particular requirement that it believes to be lacking in clarity or specificity. In fact, Rule 4570 contains specific standards throughout its provisions. For example, th e rule‘s applicability provision, Section 2.0, is unambiguously presented as, ―The provisions of this rule shall apply to any Confined Animal Facility.‖ The rule‘s compliance time frame is also clearly set out in Section 8.0. Rule 4570‘s provisions imposin g more particular requirements are also clearly set forth. For example, the Phase II Dairy silage menu, Table 4.1 B., requires owners and operators to select among mitigation measures that contain specific standards for the thickness of the tarps that cove r the silage piles; the density of the silage piles themselves; and for managing the exposure of the silage piles. Similarly, the Phase II Dairy free stall barn menu, Table 4.1 D., requires owners and operators to select among mitigation measures that spec ify the width of paving for feedlanes, the frequency for clearing the feedlanes, and the type of allowable bedding materials. These are but a few examples of the specific standards set forth throughout Rule
4570.

Moreover, the record associated with the development of Rule 4570 shows efforts made by EPA and the District to ensure clarity in Rule 4570. For example, in a comment letter provided by EPA to the District regarding EPA‘s review of a draft version of Rule 4570, EPA recommended to
the District tha t it r evise three Phase II menus for d airies by adding definitions for at least six terms and including a specific frequency for vacuuming manure from freestall barns. 131 

### In addition, EPA‘s
Rule 4570 TSD contains detailed references to various standards embe dded in the rule, further evidence that we carefully considered the clarity and specificity of Rule 4570‘s standards and requirements. For example, EPA‘s Rule 4570 TSD (at p. 6) notes that the 2009 version of Rule 4570 has one menu generally for poultry fa cilities, while the current rule has two menus more specifically tailored to layer facilities (Table 4.5) and broiler, duck or turkey facilities (Table 4.6). EPA‘s Rule 4570 TSD (at p. 4) also describes the removal of an option from dairy and feedlot

menus regarding the installation of floats in water troughs because the District determined that the measure was already standard industry practice.
In addition to the rule‘s clarity and specificity, EPA considered the rule‘s other enforcement

related provision s. For example, sections 5.1.3 and 8.1 require each CAF owner/operator to submit, by April 21, 2011, an application for a construction or operating permit that includes a facility emission mitigation plan identifying the mitigation measures selected for th e facility. Section 5.1.6 requires the District to act on complete applications within 6 months of receipt and to list the

131 Let ter from Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rules Office

, EPA Region 9 to George Heinen, SJVUAPCD , July 20,
2010.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 178 

### approved mitigation measures as permit conditions. Section 5.1.2 also specifies that initial permits to construct and operate for lar ge CAFs will be subject to a 30

- day public comment period.

In addition, sections 7.0

- 7.9 contain various recordke eping requirements, including: section 7.2.1, which requires owners and operators to maintain copies of all facility permits; section 7.2.2,

w hich requires owners and operators to maintain quarterly records of the number of animals of each species and production group; and, section 7.2.3, which contains a broad requirement for owners and operators to ―maintain records sufficient to demonstrate c ompliance with all ap plicable mitigation measures.‖ In addition, sections 7.3

- 7.8 contain specific recordkeeping requirements for various mitigation measures 132 

### and section 7.9 requires CAF owners and operators to maintain records for a minimum of 5 years. I n addition, sections 7.10 and 7.11 impose source testing requirements and relevant test methods.

Comment : AIR alleges that Rule 4570‘s recordkeeping provisions are inadequate to assure sufficient public access to documents that demonstrate compliance with applicable mitigation measures. Specifically, AIR states that the rule‘s requirement that owners and operator s provide records to the APCO and EPA upon request is not sufficient because it does not ―mandate that records ... be made available to the public.‖ AIR claims that, as a result, the public could be denied access to records by entities ―claiming that they are proprietary, confidential business information, or otherwise not disclosable under the various exemptions in open records laws.‖ AIR expresses the concern that Rule 4570‘s lack of a ―guarantee‖ of public access to all records demonstrating compliance m eans that the District and/or EPA could withhold documents from the public on the ground that Rule 4570 ―trumps‖ inconsistent state law or conflicts with FOIA.

Response : The Freedom of Information Act (―FOIA‖), 5 U.S.C. §552, requires the federal

govern ment, including agencies such as EPA, to provide records to the public upon request. 133 

### In addition, EPA has its own regulations that apply to its implementation of FOIA. 134 

### As noted by the commenter, FOIA does include various exemptions, including an exemptio n for ―trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential. Id . at § 552(b)(7). The FOIA regulations specify the procedures by which regulated entities may claim
information to be confidential or trad e secret and the process for the review of such claims. 135 

### EPA‘s regulations also specify that ―emissions data‖ does not qualify as confidential information. 136 

### These statutory and regulatory provisions and exemptions would apply to records in EPA‘s possession regardless of whether Rule 4570 explicitly required records to be made available to the public. The fact that local Rule 4570 does not expressly provide the public with access to CAF records cannot ―trump‖ federal law in FOIA. Moreover, it would be incons istent with these established statutory and regulatory provisions to withhold our approval of Rule 4570 for the reason suggested by the commenter. Few if any State requirements approved by EPA mandate that records be made available to the public as request ed by the commenter. Rule 4570, by requiring records be

132 F or example, section 7.3, ―Records for Feed and Silage Mitigation Measures,‖ and section 7.5, ―Records for Freestall/Corral/Animal Housing‖ set forth detailed r ecordkeeping requirements for those specific work practice requirements.

133 California has an analogous statute, the Public Records Act, Cal. Govt. Code §§6250

- 6276.48

.

134 40 CFR Part 2, and regulations specific to the CAA at 40 CFR § 2.301 et seq

.

135 4 0 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (40 CFR § 2.201

- 2.215).

136 40 CFR § 2.301(e).Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 179 

### made available to regulatory agencies, is consistent with the vast majority of the thousands of SIP requirements approved by EPA over the last 40 years, and we are aware of nothing in the CAA that

con flicts with this practice.

Comment : AIR alleges two specific deficiencies in Rule 4570‘s monitoring provisions: (1) even though Rule 4570 has a general provision for maintaining records sufficient to demonstrate compliance, there is no specific monitori ng associated with the requirement to push TMR within three feet of a feedlane fence; and (2) monitoring of lagoons is left to the discretion of the APCO and EPA.

Response : Although there is not a specific provision requiring recordkeeping for pushing T MR within three feet of a feedlane fence, as the commenter notes, section 7.2.3 of Rule 4570 requires that CAF owners and operators ―maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with all applicable mitigation measures. In addition, the District ha s developed an example Dairy Compliance Checklist that provides compliance guidance. 137 

### The Checklist asks dairies to have a check mark for every day that feed is pushed within three feet of the feedlane fence within two hours of placing the feed in the feed lane.
With respect to the commenter‘s concern regarding discretion in the monitoring of lagoons (section 6.1), EPA notes that the ―discretion‖ is reasonably limited in scope. Rule 4570 section 6.1 specifies that lagoons must be monitored ―at least once ev ery calendar quarter, with at least 30 days between monitoring tests.‖ Although section 6.1 does not specify the parameters that must be monitored, this issue is addressed by other provisions within the rule. For example, sections 5.1.3 and 5.1.5 require i mplementation of emission mitigation plans, which must be included as permit conditions in the CAF‘s operating and construction permits. For owners and operators implementing lagoons as a mitigation measure, section 6.1 contemplates that these plans and

pe rmits will identify the parameters app roved by the District and EPA. Furthermore, owners and operators using lagoons as mitigation measures must also comply with source testing requirements set forth in sections 7.10.2

– 7.10.6.

Comment : AIR alleges tha t Rule 4570 is deficient because it does not require operators to affirm the truth of records under penalty of perjury, nor does it require operators to report violations to the District or EPA.

Response : AIR has not provided and EPA is not aware of any federal rule, regulation or policy that would impose such requirements as a condition of SIP approval. As explained above, EPA evaluated the enforceability of Rule 4570 according to the authorities and guidelin es identified in

our propos ed rule and found that Rule 4570 meets the general criteria for enforceability imposed by the CAA and relevant guidance and regulations. EPA also notes that CAA section 113(c)(2) provides that any person who knowingly makes a ―fa lse material statement‖ or ―omits material information from ... any ... application, record, report, plan or other document‖ required by the Act may be subject to criminal fin es or by imprisonment or both. This provision will apply to records required by R ule 4570 upon the effective date of our approval of the rule into the California SIP.

137 See SJVUAPCD Dairy Compliance Checklist.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 180 

## H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment : CARB has requested that EPA limit the duration of approval of the PM 2.5 

### and ozone motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) submitted on July 29, 2011 to last only until the effective date of EPA‘s adequacy finding for any subsequent budgets as is allowed under EPA‘s May 14, 1999 guidance memorandum ―Conformity Guidance on Implementation of the March 2, 1999, Conformity Court D ecisions.‖

Response : The transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of budgets. See 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a state‘s request to limit an approval if the request includes the following elements:

an acknowl edgement and explanation as to why the budgets under consideration have become outdated or deficient; a commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update; and a request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to the time when new budgets have been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes.

See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of MVEB in certain California SIPs).

Because CARB‘s request does not include all of these elements

, we cannot a ddress it at this time. Once CARB has adequately addressed them, we intend to propose to limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB in the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP and provide the public an opportunity to

comment. 138 

### The duration of the approval of the budgets, however, is not limited until we complete such a rulemaking.

138 C ARB‘s letter also requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB approved with the
2008 PM 2.5 Plan. These budgets were also submitted on July 29, 2011 as an appendix to the 2001 Ozone SIP Revisions.Draft RTC for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page 181 

## Appendix A

– State MeasuresTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 1 

## A. Complete List of State Measures

Appendix Table A

- 1 is a list of all measures adopted by CARB from 1990 until the end of 2006

. This period covers the 18 years prior to the development of the 2007 State Strategy an d the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan . The table should include any substantive rules that would still be generating emissions reductions in the San Joaquin Valley during the 2005

- 2024 time period covered by the SJV 2007 8

- hour Ozone SIP and thus reflected in the baseline for the SIP

. This list does not include the limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation nor the State‘s inspection and maintenance program adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.
Measures that are categorized as Not Applicable are either solely administrative (e.g., permit fees, state ambient air quality standards), do not address VOC or NO
x 

### in the SJV (e.g., asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the SJV (e.g., test methods).

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1



## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category
Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty. T 13, CCR, 2035

- 2041, 1977 12/14/89 On

- road

Non

- vehicular Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC
27156 & 38391 02/08/90 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide
from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802

- 90803 05/10/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not applicableTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 2 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category
Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Consumer products

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 On

- road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for
Medical Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for
California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On

- road

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR,
70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory
Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase
I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 On

- road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I

- Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Consumer products

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90 On

- road

Revision to Designation Criteria

. T 17, CCR,
60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et.

seq. 12/13/90 Not applicableTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 3 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Off

- road

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not applicable

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Fuels

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not applicable

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not applicable

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not applicable

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light & Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 On

- road

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicable

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2
. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1,
1977 11/12/91 On

- road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable
Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission
vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 On

- road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 2292.3, 229 2.5 , 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 12/12/91 FuelsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 4 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR,
2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Off

- road

Phase II

- Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Consumer products

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not applicable

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels. T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 03/12/92 On

- road

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 90621.3 04/09/92 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303,
70304 05/14/92 Not applicable

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel
Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 On

- road

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not applicable

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not applicable

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not applicable

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 On

- road

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems

. T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test
Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 On

- road

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissi on of
Toxic Metals from Non

- Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303.5,
60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty
Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194,
2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 On

- road

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty
Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 On

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 5 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category
Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not applicable

1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93 Off

- road

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not applicable

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
as Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not applicable

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ " Emissions Inventory
Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not applicable

Urban Transit Buses

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965,
2112 06/10/93 On

- road

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 On

- road

Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500,
70600 08/12/93 Not applicable

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not applicable

Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Fuels

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not applicable
Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR,
2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Off

- road

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test
Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 On

- road

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not applicable Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not applicable

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Fuels

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 FuelsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 6 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/28/94 Not applicable

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Off

- road

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94540

- 94555 09/22/94 Consumer products

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Fuels

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not applicable Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 On

- road

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On

- road

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94 On

- road

Specification for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels (M100). T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control
Plan. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547... 03/23/95 Consumer products

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable

Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission
Formula. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On

- road

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 On

- road

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On

- road

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Consumer productsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 7 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 On

- road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Fuels Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Fuels

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 226 2.5 , 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Mo nox ide Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Off

- road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On

- road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301

- 93355, Appendix A

- E ( emissions invento ry) 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives). T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700

- 90705 09/26/96 Not applicable

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines &
Off

- Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off

- road

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods . T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 FuelsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 8 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Consumer products

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201

- 60209 11/21/96 Not applicable

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products
Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517, 94321 11/21/96 Consumer products

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not applicable Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 On

- road

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Consumer products

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Fuels

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2465 03/27/97 Off

- road

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not applicable

Interchangeable Emission s Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not applicable

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle
Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 On

- road

Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures) Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 On

- road

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable

Area Designations

. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and 2190

- 2194 12/11/97 On

- road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17,CCR 90800. 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400,2410

- 2414 03/26/98 Off

- road

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not applicableTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 9 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating

. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air
Contaminant

. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Off

- road

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140,
2143

- 2148 11/05/98 On

- road

Aftermarket Parts for Off

- Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2476 11/19/98 Off

- road

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And
Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the
amendment of CARB Method 310 11/19/98 Consumer products

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Consumer products

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational
Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Off

- road

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 10 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On

- road

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98 Off

- road

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 On

- road

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content). T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a
Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for
Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling for MTBE

. T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP

- 201, TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On

- road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Off

- road

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

Term Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and
94513 10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265,
2266 etc 12/09/99 Fuels

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article 2.1. 01/27/00 Off

- road

Transit Bus Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On

- road

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320,
80330 03/23/00 Not applicableTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 11 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category
Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18)

. T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic
Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control
Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products

Aerosol ( Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow

- up Amendments. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Fuels

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)"
Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On

- road

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated
Test Procedure 01/25/01 On

- road

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 &
70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 On

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 12 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by reference 07/26/01 Off

- road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and
Later. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test procedures 10/25/01 On

- road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Other

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects

. T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorp o ra te test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 On

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor
Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On

- road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements

. T 13, CCR,
2700

- 2710 05/16/02 On

- road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25 /02 FuelsTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 13 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category
Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 On

- road

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, CCR,
60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling

. T 13, CCR,
2480 12/12/02 On

- road

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes

. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 On

- road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 On

- road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Off

- road Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13
& T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On

- road

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR,
2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Off

- road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity
Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel
Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units

. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 On

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 14 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorp orate by reference 12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In

- Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 On

- road

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations
for State PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality
Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/22/0 4 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Off

- road

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of
2466 02/26/04 Off

- road

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 On

- road

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 On

- road

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for
Para

- Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel
Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment
Defects List

. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated
document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 15 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 2266.5 11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft &
Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 11/18/04 Fuels

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems
Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and
90803 11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Not applicable

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off

- road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05 On

- road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 On

- road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 On

- road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Off roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 16 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]

. T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from
New and In

- Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 On

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships
Onboard Incineration

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Off

- road

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within
California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the
California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/05 Off

- road

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 On

- road

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and
Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off

- road

AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 On

- road

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 On

- road

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 On

- road

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large
Off

- Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Off

- road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On

- road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program

. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Off

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 17 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 1 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Off

- road

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On

- road

On

- Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On

- road

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Other

Zero Emission Bus Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On

- road

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Emissions Inventory
Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships
and Ocean

- Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR, 93115.1

- 93115.15.t. 11/16/06 O ther

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, &
60210 11/16/06 Not applicable

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer products

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program

, Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 12/06/06 Off

- road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 17, CCR, 93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Not applicable

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 On

- roadTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 18 

## B. State Rules that Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley

A substantial number of the measures adopted by C ARB since 1990 do not affect VOC
or NO
x 

### emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. These types of measures include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary desi gnations, and controls for pollutants
other than VOC or NO
x 

### . Appendix Table A

- 2 provides a list of these measures.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emission s reduction measure

Non

- vehicular Test Methods

. T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146

- 94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emission s reduction measure

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not a ozone emissions reduction

measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802

- 90803 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 05/10/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for
Medical Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not a ozone emissions reduction

measure
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Emission s Reduction Accounting Procedures for
California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700

- 70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction me asure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR,
70600

- 70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions I nvento ry Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90704, 93300

- 93347 09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 19 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Revision to Designation Criteria

. T 17, CCR,
60200

- 60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not a ozone emissions reduction

measure
Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et.

seq. 12/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- V ehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Non

- Vehicular Test Methods . T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure.

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

. Obsolete.

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ " Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 06/13/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contamin ant. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2 . T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 20 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303,
70304 05/14/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems . T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not a VOC or NO
x emissions
reduction measure

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303.5,
60200

- 60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants
as Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Emissions Inventory
Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300

- 93347 06/10/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/08/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500,
70600 08/12/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not a PM or ozone control measure (perc is not a VOC)

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200

- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300

- 70306 11/18/93 Not an emissions reduction measure

SCAQMD's Reclaim Consideration 03/10/94 Not a SJV control measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.5, 90803 04/14/94 Not an emissions reduction measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 21 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700

- 90705 07/28/94 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not an emissions reduction measure
Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not an emissions reduction measure

Employee

- Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Carbon mo noxide requirement

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not applicable to SJV

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301

- 93355, Appendix A

- E ( emissions invento ry) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700

- 90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201

- 60209 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Interchangeable Emission s Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700

- 90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations '97. T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 &
60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17,CCR 90800 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 22 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090

- 60095 04/23/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating . T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an emiss ions reduction measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant . T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101

- 94104, 94106, 94108

- 94113, 941T 17

- 94124, 94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 60040 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and
State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300

- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ― Hot Spots ‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90701

- 90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emissions reduction measure

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100

- 80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320,
80330 03/23/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not a VOC or NO
x emissions
reduction measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156

- 80158 09/28/00 Not a SJV control measure (Sacramento Valley air basin only)

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 &
70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700

- 90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reducti on measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 23 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 2 

## Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board That Do Not Address VOC or NO
x 

## in the San Joaquin Valley
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Review of California Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not an emissions reduction measure

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, CCR, 60065.1

- 60065.45 and 60075.1

- 60075.45 12/12/02 Not an emissions reduction measure

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations
for State PM 2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality
Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non

- vehicular Sources

. T 17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and
90803 11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Invento ry Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 No t an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality
Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, &
60210 11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 24 

## C. State Fuel Measures

C ARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel
standards for off

- road sources. Appendix Table A

- 3 is a list of these revisions.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 3 

## Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Renumber ed to section 228 1

. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2256 12/13/90 Renumber ed to section 2282. Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) (listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)

Diesel Fuel Regulations

- Emergency. T 13, CCR, 2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13
& T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor C raft &
Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 11/18/04 NO
x reductions estimated at 0.1 tpd
for SJV

. See C ARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase
I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996. Obsolete.

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260

- 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262

- 2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Section 2251.5

- obsolete; section 2258 wintertime; section 2263, superseded

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 25 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 3 

## Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 226 2.5 , 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel additives). T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 R epealed sections

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen Content). T 13, CCR, sections 226 2.5 (b) and 2265(a)(2) 12/11/98 Wintertime gasoline for South Coast and Imperial County. Not applicable
to the SJV area.

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling
for MTBE

. T 13, CCR, 226 2.5 , and 2273 06/24/99 Not applicable to the SJV /SC area/Obsolete

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265,
2266 etc

. 12/09/99 2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 (designation of alternative limits) not approved; otherwise super seded by 11/18/04 and 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods

. T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow

- up Amendments. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 226 2.5 , 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07
rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rulesTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 26 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 3 

## Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rule

. Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 ) (except for section 2272 (CARFG3 standards for small refineries) and 2273.5 (requirement to identify gasoline containing
ethanol when delivered to retail station))

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 226 2.5 , 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California Procedures‖), and 2266.5 11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 ( 5/12/10 )

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only. Obsolete.

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a
Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emission s reductions

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 ExpiredTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 27 

## D. State On

- Road Mobile Sources Measures

Appendix Tables A

- 4 and A

- 5 list measures adopted by C ARB since 19 90 for on

- road
and off

- road sources.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 4



## On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 27156 & 38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16 , 1994 (59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 FR 46979 (9/13/94))

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 09/28/90 Waivers granted January 7, 19 93 & April 6, 19 98 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2187 11/08/90

Onboard Diagnostics for Light

- Duty Trucks and Light
& Medium

- Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977, 1968.1 09/12/91 Waiver granted October 2, 19 96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96)) Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1977 11/12/91

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission
vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290

- 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test
Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960. 1(k), 2317 11 /12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 28 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 4 

## On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Requirements for Low Emission Passenger Cars, Light

- Duty Trucks & Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900 01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 ( 69 FR 59920 (October 6, 2004 ) )

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190

- 2194, 2180

- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 19 96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28,
2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04))

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding requested October 8, 1996.

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18

, 200 1 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 29 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 4 

## On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission Requirements for Ultra

- Small Volume Vehicle
Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test procedures 05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Off

- Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and incorp orate test procedures 07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 (69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180

- 2188 and 2190

- 2194 12/11/97

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965, 1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137

- 2140,
2143

- 2148 11/05/98 Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within the

scope (1999 ZEV amendments) December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On

- Road) Motorcycles. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600

- 2610 12/10/98 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program.
Revised 2/21/ 06 and 12/7/06

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, sections 2300

- 2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 Removal of obsolete provisions, streamlining and other minor changes to 9/1990 rule.

Transit Bus Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 Combination of fleet requirements, emission standards, and zero

- emission bus standards. Fleet requirements achieve approximately 2 tpd NO
x reductions statewide, so minimal effect
in SJV. Federal & state emission
standards are the same for 2010 MY buses.

Light

- and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines

. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 12/07/00 Waiver granted for LDV & HDV April 11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))

Initial notice on within

- the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 (May 1 4, 2007).TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 30 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 4 

## On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not

- to

- Exceed (NTE)"
Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested December 26, 2001

.

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated Test
Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope December 21,
2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and
Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 Found within the scope December 21,
2006 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and
Later. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures 10/25/01 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))

Low Emission Vehicle Regulations. T 13, CCR, 1960.1,19 60.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test procedures and guidelines 11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21, 2005 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1

- 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations

. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607

- 2610 02/21/02 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program. Revised 12/7/06

.

On

- Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 ( 2/5/04 )

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and
In

- Use Compliance Requirements

. T 13, CCR, 2700

- 2710 05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments

. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incorporated by reference 10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements over
2000 rule.

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes

. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05)) for all but HDGE. HDGE standards adopted to harmonize with EPA‘s. Initial noti ce on within

the

- scope finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 27114 ( 5/ 1 4/07 ).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling

. T 13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emission s reductions claimed.

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003

. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 Found within the scope Dec e mber 21,
2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 31 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 4 

## On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles

. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Transport Refrigeration Units

. T 13, CCR, 2022
and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and
In

- Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, CCR, 2701

- 2707 & 2709 12/11/03 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology.

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 Compliance provision. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808. 01

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine

- Chip Reflash. T 13, CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, and 2194 03/27/04 Compliance provision

.

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 Waiver granted December 22, 2005 (71 FR 335 (1/4/06))

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 Various modifications to urban/transit
bus standards

.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 CARB has requested that EPA c onfirm requirement is not preempted. Initial notice 75 FR 43975 (7/27/2010)

Greenhouse Gas Standards

. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted June 30, 2009 (74 FR 32744 (July 8, 2009)

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05

On

- Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model

- Year Heavy

- Duty Engines (HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 Waiver granted August 13, 2008 (73 FR 52042 (9/8/08))

2007

- 2009 Model

- Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 &
10/20/05 Aligns State emission standards with

federal emission standards.

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New
and In

- Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR section 1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 Confirm not pre

- empted or within the scope finding requested. Initial no tice 75 FR 43975 ( 7/27/ 2010 )TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 32 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 4 

## On

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On

Road Heavy

- Duty Diesel

- Fueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05

AB1009 Heavy

- Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission control labels

.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In

- Use. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit technology, supporting rule for in

- use control measures.

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and
Eva porative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 2010 (75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010))

.

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 Compliance provision. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01

On

- Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested

.

Heavy

- Duty In

- Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by
reference 09/28/06 Compliance provision. Compliance program "essentially identical to
EPA's

. " See Updated Information Digest for the Rule.

Zero Emission Bus Regulation

. T 13, CCR, 2023.1, 2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 Delays ZEB requirements due to high bus costs and unproven durability, reliability and ability to produce the number of buses required by the regulation. See Updated Information Digest.

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, CCR, 2601

- 2610 and appendices A

- D 12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement program.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 33 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 5 

## Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Waiver granted July 5, 19 95 ( 60 FR
37440 ( 7 /2 0 /95) ) 1

- year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403

- 2407 04/08/93

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)(I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines.
CO Standards 1/25/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400,
2410

- 2414 03/26/98 W ithin the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 (11/20/00)), waiver granted (durability requirements)

, November 10, 20 03 ( 65 FR 65702 (1 1 / 21 /0 3 )).

Small Off

- Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR,
2400

- 2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750

- 2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755

- 2767, 2767.1, 2768

- 2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Waiver granted, December 11, 2006 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR,
2410

- 2414, 2111

- 2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted December 23, 1996 (61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines &
Off

- Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

1997 & Later Model Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410

- 2414, 2415 12/10/98 Within the scope finding request March 4, 2000

Off

- Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Addition to March 4, 2000 request November 19, 2004. Made changes to riding season restrictions

.
Off

- Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines

. T 13, CCR, 2411

- 2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission
standards identical to EPA's.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR,
2420

- 2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423

- 2427, & appendix A to article 2.1. 01/2 7 /00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 )TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 34 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 5 

## Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Off

- Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Waiver granted February 5, 2010 (75 FR 8056 ( 2/23/2010 ) )

In

- Use Off

- Road Diesel Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2449 07/26/07 Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment (on waiver), 73 FR 58585 (10/7/2008).

Large Off

- Road Spark

- Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411

- 2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted May 15, 20 06 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off

- Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007;

a dopts more stringent standards for
2010

. Waiver requested.

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Waiver granted March 22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007))

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440

- 2442, 2443.1

- 2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by reference 07/26/01 Waiver granted in part March 22, 2007 (59 FR 14546 (March 28, 2007)) 2007 standards not waived

.

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Revision to year 2007 standards in
7/26/ 20 01 marine inboard engine standards. Waiver requested February 7, 2008

.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2465 03/27/97

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450

- 2463 12/10/98

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13,
CCR Amendments to 2450

- 2465, and repeal of
2466 02/26/04

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5 02/26/04 Within

- the

- scope finding/waiver requested March 28, 2005.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, and 2465 06/22/06 Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 35 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 5 

## Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel

- Fueled Engines. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3 12/06/06 Within

- the

- scope finding/w aiver requested December 5, 2008

.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel

- Fueled Portable Engines. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3 , 93116.3.1 03/22/07 Within

- the

- scope finding /w aiver requested December 5, 2008

.

Aftermarket Parts for Off

- Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 2470

- 2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]

. T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units

. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non

- road) January 9, 200 9 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and
Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Within

- the

- scope finding and w aiver request January 29, 20 07

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships
Onboard Incineration

. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 No emission s reductions. No cruise ships subject to rule call at SJV ports. See Initial Statement of Reasons for Rule, p. II

- 1.

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel

- Electric Engines Operated on Ocean

- Going Vessels within
California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the
California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, CCR, 93118 12/08/0 5 No emission s reductions claimed for
SJV.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships
and Ocean

- Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 No emission s reductions claimed for
SJV

.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 36 

## E. State Consumer Product Measures

California has been regulating the VOC content of consumer products for more than 20 years and continues to tighten standards and regulate more products. Appendix Table A

- 6 is a list
of CARB ‘s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1990

.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 6 

## Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Consumer Products BAAQMD. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94526 06/14/90 Not applicable to the SJV area

Phase I

- Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 10/11/90 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Phase II

- Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507

- 94513, 94515 01/09/92 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer
Products. T 17, CCR, 94507

- 94517 11/30/92 Not a control measure

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94540

- 94555 09/22/94 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control
Plan. T 17, CCR, 94520

- 94528, 94540

- 94543, 94547. 03/23/95 Superseded by 6/22/00 rule.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, CCR, 94500

- 94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 94526 11/21/96 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/16 rule for consumer products; superseded by
11/17/06 rule for aeroso l coating products.

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products
Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508

- 94515, 99517,
94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 ruleTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 37 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 6 

## Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Consumer Products (Mid

- Term Measures)
Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products

- LVP

- VOC Definitions And
Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the
amendment of CARB Method 310 11/19/98 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for test
method 310 and 11/17/06 rule for

rest.

California Consumer Products Regulation Mid

Term Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and
94513 10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control
Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 94700, 94701, 94521

- 94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Reg ulations

. T 17, CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity
Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for
Para

- Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date of 5/6/05)

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Approved November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57074) (EO order date 9/16/07)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 38 

## F

. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), C ARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from ga soline marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes C ARB, in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods. The installation and operation of C ARB

- cert ified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622 (approved 74 FR 56120 (October 30, 2009)

. Appendix Table A

- 7 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by C ARB since 19 90 that address vapor recovery equipment certificatio n, defects, and/or test methods.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 7 

## Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010

- 94015, 94150

- 94160, 94000

- 94004, 94007. 06/29/95

C ARB sets requirements for and certifies vapor recovery equipment. District rules establish requirements for the installation of C ARB

certified equipment. See
SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 & 4622 Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR,
94010

- 94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporate d test procedures, CP

- 201, TP

- 201.4, and TP

- 201.6 06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP

- 201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods
and Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects

. T 17, CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures

. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 39 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 7 

## Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment
Defects List

. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated
document 08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems
Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems

. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST). T 17 , CCR, 94010

, 94011

, 94016 and 94168 and incorporated documents 06/21/07

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment
Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/ATSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 40 

## G

. Other State Measures

A number of C ARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in
A ppendix Tables A

- 2 through A

- 7

. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A

- 8

.

A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 8 

## Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide
from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Covered by District Rule 7021

. E missions in category are less than 0.01 tpd VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from N on

- Ferrous Metal Melting. T
17 & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Adopted as District Rule 7060

.

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic
Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Mainly address es non

- VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Controls equivalent to SJVUAPCD Regulation VIII, approved 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip ment Refinishing Coatings C ontaining Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR, 93112 09/20/01 Air toxic control measures prohibits additives with hexavalent
chromium. Total emissions CA are less than 300 lb per year. ISOR, p.
V

- 2.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94200

- 94214 11/15/01 Minimal impact, few units
certified. See ISOR for 9/28/06 rule
amendment

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Regulated by Rules 4103 & 4106. Rule 4103 revised 5/17/07

, approved 75 FR 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09). Rule 4106 (revised 6/21/01), approved 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02) ; additional revision in
2010

.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 &
documents incorp orate by reference 2/26/04 PM control measure. NO
x regulated by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)). PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replacement of existing engines
as a result of District rule.TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page A

- 41 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### A

- 8 

## Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, CCR, 9310 2.5 12/09/04 Air toxic control measures. Total emissions (chromium & nickel in CA are less than 200 lb per year. ISOR, p. IV

- 6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments)

. T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 3/17/05 Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM control measure. NO
x regulated by
Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)). PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replac ement of existing engines
as a result of District rule.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In

- Use Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR, 93115.1

- 93115.15.t. 11/16/06 PM control measure. NO
x re gulated by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)) PM reductions are expected to be achieved primarily by replacement of existing engines
as a result of District rule.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 94207

- 942142 10/19/06 Addition of 2013 standards NO
x and VOC standards for DG units which burn waste gas.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 17, CCR, 93102.1

- 93102.16 12/07/06 Air toxic control measures. Total emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per

year. ISOR, p. 49.

## Appendix B

– SJV U APCD RulesTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 1 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4101 Visible Emissions 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 70 FR 46770
(8/11/05)

4103 Open Burning 4/15/2010 4/15/2010 4/15/2010 Final signed September 30

, 2011 Control strategy measure.

4104 Reduction of Animal
Matter 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10)

4105 Commercial Offsite Multi

- User Hazardous
and Non

- Hazardous Waste Disposal
Facilities 12/17/1992 N/A N/A N/A

4106 Prescribed Burning 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02)

4201 Particulate matter
concentrations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 67 FR 16026 (4/4/02)

4202 Particulate matter emission rates 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 65 FR 21347 (4/21/00)

4203 Particulate Matter Emissions from
Incineration of
Combustible Refuse 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 N/A no action

4204 Cotton Gin 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 2/17/2005 71 FR 65740 (11/08/06)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 2 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4301 Fuel Burning Equipment 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 26876 (5/18/1999)

4302 Incinerator Burning 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999)

4303 Orchard Heaters 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999)

4304 Equipment Turning Procedures for Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 66 FR 5766 (11/16/01)

4305 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters

- Phase 2 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04)

4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters

- Phase 3 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strategy measure

4307 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters

- 2.0 MM BTU/hr to 5.0
MMBTU/hr 5/19/2011 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 75 FR 1715 (1/13/10) Control strategy measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 3 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4308 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters

- 0.75 MM BTU/hr to 2.0
MMBTU/hr 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 76 FR 5276 ( 1/31/11 ) Control strategy measure

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators and
Ovens 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)

4311 Flares 6/18/2009 6/18/2009 6/18/2009 76 FR 68106 ( 11 /3/11 ) Control strategy measure

4313 Lime Kilns 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 68 FR 52510 (9/4/2003)

4320 AERO for Boilers 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 76 FR 16696 (3/25/11) Control strategy measure

4351 Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process
Heaters

- Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04)

4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and
Process Heaters 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 75 FR 60623 (10/1/10) Revisions scheduled for adoption

December 15, 2011

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 5 /19/2011 5/19/2011 9 /16/20 10 76 FR 53640 ( 8/29 / 11 ) Control strategy measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 4 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4401 Steam

- Enhanced Crude
Oil Production Wells 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 6/16/ 201 1 76 FR 70886 ( 11/16 /11 )

4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 76 FR 39777 (7/7/11) Revisions scheduled for adoption

December 15, 2011

4403 Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude
Oil and Gas Production 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06)

4404 Heavy Oil Test Station

– Kern 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10)

4405 Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Existing
Steam Generators (Central and Western Kern County) 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A

4406 Sulfur Compounds from
Oilfield Steam
Generators

- Kern 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A

4407 In

- situ Combustion
Well Vents 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 60 FR 12121 (3/6/95)

4408 Glycol Dehydration Systems 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 68 FR 51187 (8/26/03)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 5 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4409 Components at Light
Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas
Production 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)

4451 Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges,
Threaded Connections and Process Drains at
Petroleum Refineries
and Chemical Plants 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06)

4452 Pump and Compressor
Seals at Petroleum
Refiners 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)

4453 Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems 12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08)

withdrawn

4454 Refinery Process
Turnaround 12/19/1992 12/19/1992 N/A 73 FR 48 (1/02/08)

withdrawn

4455 Components at
Refineries 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06)

4501 Alternate Compliance
for BARCT 6/17/1999 6/17/1999 N/A no actionTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 6 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4550 Conservation Management Practices 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 7683 (2/14/06)

4565 Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 3/15/2007 3/15/2007 3/15/2007 Final signed December 13, 2011 Control strategy measures

4566 Organic Waste 8/18/2011 8/18/2011 N/A N/A Control strategy measure

4570 Confined Animal Facilities 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 F inal signed December 13, 2011 Control strategy measures

4601 Architectural Coatings 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 76 FR 69135 ( 11 / 8 /11) Control strategy measure

4602 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 76 FR 67369 ( 11/1/ 11)

4603 Surface Coating of
Metal Parts and
Products 9/17/20 09 9/17/20 09 9/17/20 09 76 FR 67369 (11/1/11)

4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 4612 (1/19/10)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 7 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating 6/16/2011 6/16/2011 6/16/ 201 1 76 FR 70886 (11/16/11)

4606 Wood Products Coating Operations 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 528 94 (10/15/09)

4607 Graphic Arts 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 74 FR 528 94 (10/15/09) Control strategy measure

4610 Glass Coating Operations 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 69 FR 60962 (10/14/04)

4612 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations

– Phase 2 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 10/21/2010 F inal signed
November 30

, 2011

4621 Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage
Containers 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09)

4622 Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicles 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/30/09)

4623 Storage of Organic Liquids 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 70 FR 53937 (9/13/05) Control strategy measure

4624 Transfer of Organic Liquids 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) Control strategy measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 8 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4625 Wastewater Separators 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 76 FR 39777 (7/7/11) Revisions scheduled for adoption

December 15, 2011

4641 Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt Paving and Maintenance Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691 (3/9/10)

4642 Solid Waste Disposal
Site 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 66 FR 38939 (7/26/01)

4651 Soil Decontamination Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 56120 (10/ 30 /09)

4652 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 12/17/1992 not submitted N/A N/A N o sources

4653 Adhesives and Sealants 9/1 6 /20 10 9/1 6 /20 10 9/16/2010 Final signed November 18,
2011 Control strategy measures

4661 Organic Solvents 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 75 FR 24406 (5/5/2010) Control strategy measure

4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) Control strategy measure

4663 Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) Control strategy measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 9 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4672 Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 75 FR 10691
(3/9/10)

4681 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 63 FR 43881
(8/17/98)

4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 NPR: 9/20/2007

6/16/1994 NPR: 76 FR 41745

(7/15/11)

60 FR 31086 (6/13/95). Control strategy measure Revisions

scheduled for adoption December 15,
2011

4684 Polyester Resin Operations 8 /1 8 /2011 8/18/ 2011 8/18/ 20 11 Final signed November 18,
2011

4691 (461.02) Vegetable Oil

Processing Operations 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 59 FR 2535
(1/18/94)

4692 Commer c ial Charbroiling 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 76 FR 68103 ( 11 / 3 /11)

4693 Bakery Ovens 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 69 FR 22441
(4/26/04)

4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks 8/18/2011 8/18/2011 N/A no action Control strategy measure

4695 Brandy and Wine Aging 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 76 FR 47076 1 (8 /4 /11) Control strategy measureTSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 10 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

4701 I/C Engines

- Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04)

4702 I/C Engines

- Phase 2 8 /18/2 011 8/18/2011 1/18/2007 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08) Control strategy measure

4703 Stationary Gas Turbines 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 53888
(10/21/09) Control strategy measure

4801 Sulfur Compounds 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 no action

4802 Sulfuric Acid Mist 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 64 FR 30396 (6/08/99)

4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09)

4902 Residential Water
Heaters 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 75 FR 24408 (5/5/10) Control strategy measure

4905 Natural Gas

- fired, fan

type, residential central
furnaces 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07)

8011 Fugitive Dust General Requirements 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

8021 Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and other Earthmoving Activities 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)TSD for the Final A ction

o n the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA

- Region 9 Page B

- 11 

### A PPENDIX 

### T ABLE 

### B

- 1 

## Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules

December 15 , 2011

Rule No. Rule Date of Most Recent Rule Adopted/ Revised Date of Most

Recent Rule Submitted Date of Most

Recent Rule Approved Federal Register

Cite Comments

8031 Bulk Materials 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

8041 Carryout and Trackout 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

8051 Open Areas 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

8061 Paved and Unpaved
Roads 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

8071 Unpaved Vehicle/ Equipment Traffic
Areas 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

8081 Agricultural Sources 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 9/16/2004 71 FR 8461 (2/17/06)

9310 School Bus 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 75 FR 10420 (3/8/10)

9410 Employer Based Trip
Reduction 12/17/2009 12/17/2009 N/A no action Control strategy measure. Submitted May 17, 2010 (complete June 8, 2010)

9510 Indirect Source Review 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 7 6 FR 26609 (5 /9/11 )

### Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9

— December 1 5 , 2011