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

Documents referenced in this technical support document may be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking, docket no. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0589, 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 Approval 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 Quality 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 Measures 43

1. Requirements for RACM 43

2. RACM Analysis in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP 44

a. District RACM Analysis 44

b. Local 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 Attainment 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 Demonstration

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 Increases 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 NOx 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 Quality Improvement Program; an 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 Ozone Study

CCR: California Code of Regulations

CEFS: California Emissions Forecasting and Planning Inventory System

CEIDARS: California Emissions Inventory Development and Reporting System

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

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds

CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality [model]

CO: carbon monoxide

CTG: Control Techniques Guidelines

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: Federal Highway Administration

Fine particulate: PM2.5

FMVCP: Federal motor vehicle control program

FR: Federal Register

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: meteorological model performance analysis

MNB: mean normalized bias 

MNGE: unpaired peak ratio

MOZART: Model for Ozone And Related Chemical Tracers

MPO: metropolitan planning organization

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

NO2: nitrogen dioxide

NOx: oxides of nitrogen

NOA: notice of availability (of recommendations for designations)

NSR: new source review

NYQ: not yet quantified

O3: ozone

OTAQ: EPA‘s Office of Transportation and Air Quality

PA: process analysis (modeling term)

PAMS: Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations

PCA: principal component analysis

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

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

PBL: Planetary Boundary Layer (modeling term)

PSD: prevention 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: relative response factor

RTP: regional transportation plan

SC: South Coast 

SCR: selective 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 District
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. Introduction and Background
EPA-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 (adopted 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 24, 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 support of the proposed action1and 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 standards set at a stricter level of 0.08 parts per million (ppm). 62 

FR 38856.2, 3The 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 less than or equal to 0.08 ppm.440 CFR § 50.10(b).

 

1

 ―Technical Support Document for the Proposed Action 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, September 8, 2011, 

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

2

 EPA promulgated the 1-hour ozone standards of 0.12 ppm 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 standards was 

exceeded was less than or equal to 1.0 when averaged over 3 years. We revoked the 1-hour ozone standards 

effective 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 standards 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 convention 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 decimal place of the computed value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 (NOx) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources, including onroad 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, lawn 

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 emergency 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, causing 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 

asthma 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 normal 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 as 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 governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend to EPA air quality 

designations, including the appropriate boundaries for each area. Under CAA section 107, state

and tribal recommendations are due within one year of promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA then has one to two additional years to promulgate final designations. By no later 

than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, EPA is required to notify states or tribes of 

any intended modifications to their recommended areas and boundaries. States and tribes then 

have an opportunity to provide a demonstration as to why the modifications 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, section 2.3.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 tribe provides a 

recommendation, EPA must promulgate the designation that it deems appropriate.

For the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA–21) revised the deadline to promulgate nonattainment designations to provide an 

additional year (to July 2000). Additional Congressional action restricted EPA‘s authority to 

spend money to designate areas until the earlier of June 2001 or the date of the Supreme Court 

ruling in the litigation challenging the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

In June 2000, we asked each state governor and tribal 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 states 

and tribes 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 states and 

tribes provide updated recommendations, based on ambient air quality data for the years 2000 to 

2002 and any additional supporting documentation by July 15, 2003.

On 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 

standards.

5 On September 8, 2003, EPA published a Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing 

the availability of the state and tribal recommendations. See 68 FR 52933. 

On December 3, 2003, we notified California via letter of our intent to accept its 

recommendation for designating the San Joaquin Valley air basin as nonattainment. EPA, 

however, proposed to expand the boundaries of the SJV nonattainment area to include the 

mountain counties of Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa.6 On December 10, 2003, we 

published a NOA announcing 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 states to submit, by no later than February 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 mountain 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 

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

§ 51.903(a), Table 1.7See 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 designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop an 

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 Action

on 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, subpart X), states had 

until June 15, 2007–three years after final designations to nonattainment–to submit to EPA their 

SIPs demonstrating RFP and attainment.840 CFR § 51.910(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 requested that EPA reclassify the area from ―serious‖ to ―extreme‖ 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards under section 181(b)(3) of the CAA.9

CAA section 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 standards to the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. See 40 CFR § 51.903(b) (―A State may 

request a higher classification for any reason 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 standards, effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 

24409 (May 5, 2010). Because the 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. 1997 8-hour Ozone Standards Planning Requirements

In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address their ozone nonattainment 

problem, EPA issued a rule for implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. This rule is 

known 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 proposed on June 2, 2003 (68 FR 32802) and finalized in two phases. The 

Phase 1 rule addresses 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 needed for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 

2004).10 The Phase II rule addresses, 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 Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 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 51960 (August 24, 2010); and 75 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 

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

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

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

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

Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and the valley portion of Kern. The local air 

district is the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 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 I1.

 

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 using a specific methodology to evaluate 

monitored air quality data and is used to determine whether an area‘s air quality meets a NAAQS. The methodology 

for calculating design values for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 6

FIGURE I-1

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

TABLE 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 calculations.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 7

C. California’s Submittals Constituting the SJV 8-Hour Ozone State 

Implementation Plan

Five submittals or parts of submittals comprise the SIP for attaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards 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, 2007 by the SJVUAPCD 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 

Ozone Plan, April 30, 2007; CARB Resolution No. 07-20, June 14, 2007; letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, November 16, 2007 with enclosures; and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 1, 2008 

with enclosures (revising the RFP demonstrations for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley air basins). This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register

notices 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 other 

supporting documentation by CARB on November 16, 2007. See CARB Resolution No. 07-

28, September 27, 2007 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

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

enclosures. This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notices 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. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Laura 

Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with enclosures. 

This document will be referenced in this TSD and the Federal Register notices as the 2009 

State Strategy Status Report.

4. Amendments to the 2007 Ozone Plan (amending the rulemaking schedule for Measure SGOV-5 Organic Waste Operations) adopted on December 18, 2008 by the SJVUAPCD, 

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 Action

on 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 PM2.5

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 supporting information by CARB on July 29, 2011. See CARB 

Resolution No. 11-22, July 21, 2011 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, July 29, 2011, with 

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

the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions.

13

Future references to the 2007 State Strategy and 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 includes:

1. CARB, ARB Staff Report to the Air Resources Board: Accelerating San Joaquin Valley 

Air Quality Progress, November 6, 2007.

2. SJVUAPCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, May 2011 (SJV Ozone MCR).

3. CARB, Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for 

the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions, 

April 28, 2011 (2011 Progress Report).

4. Email, 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. Email, 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 Goldstene, 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 Revisions is submitted as a SIP revision. See July 29, 2011 

Goldstene letter.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 9

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

Submittals

1. Public Notice and Hearing Requirements for SIP Submittals

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

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

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

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

Both the SJVUAPCD and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2007

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

held a public hearing prior to the adoption of the Plan on April 30, 2007. See SJVUAPCD 

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, 2007 public 

hearing on the Plan. See CARB, Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Approval of the San 

Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan,‖ May 15, 2007. The District also provided the required public 

notice and hearing on the 2008 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 PM2.5 Standards, 

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

required public notice, opportunity for public comment, and public hearing 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 Implementation 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 Revisions for the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical 

Revisions to the PM2.5 SIP Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2011; and CARB 

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

Each of the five SIP submittals that comprise the SJV 2007 8-hour ozone SIP includes

proof of publication for notices of public hearings as evidence that all hearings were properly 

noticed.

2. Completeness Determinations on SIP Submittals

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

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

affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will 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 Action

on 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 legallyadopted SIP revision in front of us. The technical support information provides us the 

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

maintenance of the air quality standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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 SIP
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 12

A. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

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 an emissions inventory meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) for each of its subpart 2 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas by June 15, 2006 (for those areas designated nonattainment 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, codified 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–05–001, November 2005 (―EI Guidance‖). EPA developed the EI 

Guidance 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, PM2.5, and regional haze 

SIPs.14

For areas that were initially designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard in 

2004, EPA recommends using calendar year 2002 as the base year for the inventory required by 

CAA section 182(a)(1). EI Guidance, p. 8.15

Emissions inventories for ozone should include emissions of VOC, NOx, and carbon 

monoxide (CO) and represent an average summer week day during the ozone season. EI 

Guidance, pp. 14 and 17. States should include documentation in their submittals explaining how 

the emissions data were calculated. 70 FR at 71664 and EI Guidance, p. 40. In estimating mobile 

source emissions, states should use the latest emissions models and planning assumptions 

available at the time the SIP is developed. 68 FR at 32854 and 70 FR 71666. For California, the 

latest emissions model is the most recently EPA-approved version of EMFAC, EMFAC2007.

See 68 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008).

The emissions inventory 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 sections 110(a)(2) and (l). For areas classified under subpart 2, the 

emissions inventory submittal is due one year before the attainment and/or RFP Plan. Applicable 

EPA policy allows a state to defer the public hearing on its inventory until the time it adopts its

attainment and/or RFP plan. 70 FR at 71664 and memorandum, John Calcagni 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, PM2.5 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 13

Laxton, OAQPS-EPA, ―Public 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 sections

182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B). The requirements for RFP 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 inventories in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. We are not taking any SIP action on the 

statewide inventory here, only on the SJV inventory.

CARB submitted statewide inventories for the ozone precursors, NOx and VOC,

16 as part 

of the 2007 State Strategy. See Appendix A for the emissions inventory output tables and 

Appendix F for documentation of the emissions inventory. Summer planning inventories are 

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

2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, and 2023.17 These statewide emissions inventories 

are assembled and maintained by CARB in the California Emissions Inventory Development and 

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

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

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

CERR.

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

2007 State Strategy is based. Inventories for future years (also known 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. Specific adjustments 

for State and District rules adopted in the 2004 to 2006 time period, as well as adjustments to 

among other things, heavy duty truck VMT in 2005 and pesticide emissions, are described in the 

introductory section to Appendix A and can also be found in Appendix B to the SJV 2007 Ozone 

SIP.

The base year and future baseline planning inventories for NOx and VOC for the SJV 

ozone nonattainment area together with additional documentation for the inventories are found in 

Appendix B of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan. Summer average day (May through October) are 

provided for the base year 2002 and 2005 (which was included for control measure 

development), and the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. Inventories are also 

provided for 2012 (the attainment 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 are 

essentially synonymous. 

17

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

baseline inventories are given not only for years of importance for 8-hour ozone plans but also ones of importance 

for PM2.5 plans (e.g., 2009).
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 shows emissions of CO or emissions from nonanthropogenic sources (that is, biogenic or natural sources) although inventories developed for 

input into the air quality modeling do include CO emissions and non-anthropogenic sources. See 

information 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, 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023 from the 2007 Ozone Plan as submitted in November 

2007 is provided in Table A-1 below.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 15

TABLE A-1

Emissions Inventory Summary for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

Incorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2007

(tons per summer day)

2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

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

Adjustments154.3 60.2249.1 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

Adjustments14.0 8.42-32.0 -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 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 16

Additional Revisions to the Plan’s Base Year and Projected Baseline 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 including revised 

inventory methodologies, better activity and usage data, the 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. These included 

updates and revisions to:

regional allocation factors

out-of-state vehicle miles traveled estimates

new vehicle inventory categories

lifetime mileage assumptions

See CARB, Staff Report: Initial State of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed 

Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulations, The Drayage Truck Regulation and the TractorTrailer Greenhouse Gas Regulation, October 2010, p. 17.

CARB also comprehensively updated and revised the inventory 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, pp. 16-17.

SJVUAPCD has also made revisions to the base year and baseline inventories since 

submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan. These revisions include developing a new methodology for 

estimating NOx emissions from industrial equipment for which natural gas consumption or 

emissions are not reported for individual sources. The initial emissions estimates for these 

―unspecified‖ manufacturing and industrial natural gas consumption sources in the 2007 Ozone 

Plan came from an estimate developed in the early 1990s. After reviewing this emissions 

estimates for this category and being unable substantiate them, the District developed a new 

methodology for estimating emissions in this category. The revised methodology substantially 

reduced the estimate of NOx emissions from this category. See Table A-2 below. See also 

SJVUAPCD, ―2007 Area Sources Emissions Inventory Methodology, 050-Industrial Natural Gas 

Combustion,‖ June 13, 2006.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 17

TABLE 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 PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, 

December 2007.

Collectively, these revisions reduce the total 2002 base year NOx 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 an economic recession that 

significantly reduced activity 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 Strategy as submitted in 

November 2007.

Recession-caused decreases in emissions do not affect either the Plan‘s modeling 

validation years (1999/2000), base year (2002), or future year (2020 and 2023) inventories and 

thus do not change the carrying capacity estimates 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 needed 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 Governing 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 adoption. See CARB, 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 18

―Notice of Public Meeting to Hear a Report on Staff‘s Review of Additional Local Emission 

Controls in The San Joaquin Valley,‖ November 2, 2007; SJVUAPCD, Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, 

Notice of Public Workshops; 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 Revisions for the 8-Hour Ozone and Minor Technical Revisions to the PM2.5 SIP 

Transportation Conformity Budgets,‖ June 20, 2011.

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 sources 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 

inventories 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 these comments and 

respectfully disagree. Our full responses can be found in section III.A.2. of this TSD. 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 19

TABLE A-3

Revised Emissions Inventory Summary for the

San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

Incorporates Reductions from Measures Adopted Prior to 2011

(tons per summer day)

2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

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, Appendix B, p. B-3.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 20

B. Air Quality Modeling

1. Requirements 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 the 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 standard

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 

reductions 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 Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze.‖ EPA-454/B-07-002, April 200718 (―Guidance‖).

2. Modeling in the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan

The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) comprises a field study data collection and 

processing, air quality modeling, and 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, 

industry groups, academics, and contractors. Meteorological and air quality field 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 air 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 Appendix F ―Photochemical Modeling Support Documents.‖ An additional Plan 

 

18 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf).
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 21

component is the CARB Staff Report,

19 which includes Appendix C, a Modeling Protocol.20

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

a. Conceptual Description 

A ―conceptual description‖ is a qualitative way of characterizing the nature of an area‘s 

nonattainment or regional haze problem. It can be helpful in identifying potential stakeholders 

and for developing a modeling protocol; it could influence the choice of air quality model, 

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

and the choice of initial diagnostic tests to identify potentially effective control strategies. In 

general, a conceptual description is useful for helping a state or tribe identify priorities and 

allocate resources in performing a modeled demonstration.

The Guidance (pp. 126-128 (pdf. 135-137)) lists examples of key components of such a 

description: local vs. regional nonattainment 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 Protocol (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 that trap pollutants below them. Sea breezes (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 mountain valleys during the day. Recirculation can 

also occur via the ―Fresno eddy‖, a counterclockwise flow that returns polluted air that would 

otherwise escape through southern mountain passes. All of these contribute to the buildup of 

ozone and precursors, due to enhanced 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 Francisco 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 22

descriptions of the episodes modeled provide additional information on the conditions leading to 

high ozone.

EPA finds that the conceptual description of the ozone problem in SJV provided in the 

Plan forms 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, conducting model 

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

model to demonstrate whether proposed strategies are sufficient to attain the NAAQS and/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 organizations
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 selection of air quality, meteorological, and emissions models

b. Modeling domain

c. Horizontal and vertical resolution

d. Specification of initial and boundary conditions

e. Episode selection

f. Description of meteorological model setup

g. Development of emissions inputs

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

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

3. Model Performance Evaluation

a. Describe ambient data base

b. List evaluation procedures

c. Identify possible diagnostic testing 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. Procedural 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 Protocol covers the most important topics recommended in the Guidance, as 

discussed in the following subsections. EPA finds the protocol is adequate for developing the 

attainment demonstration.

c. Air Quality Model Selection

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

an attainment demonstration. Guidance, p. 136 (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/Tribes 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 the 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 describe 

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 basis;

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

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

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

perform sufficiently); and

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

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

considered the SAQM22, CMAQ23, and CAMx24 models. The SARMAP model 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 felt to be faster running, it 

incorporates several probing tools (DDM and PA; see the discussion 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 finds that CAMx is an 

adequate model for the ozone attainment demonstration. 

2007 Ozone Plan‘s chemical mechanism selection was the California Statewide Air 

Pollution Research Center (SAPRC). The Plan‘s Chapter 3 notes that SAPRC is more complete 

than some other mechanisms such as Carbon Bond IV (CBIV), though it can be slower running.

2007 Ozone Plan p. 3-6 (pdf. 8). The 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 finds 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: SARMAP Air Quality Model, where SARMAP stands for SJV/AUSPEX Regional Modeling 

Adaptation Project (an emissions inventory and modeling system), and in turn AUSPEX stands for Atmospheric 

Utility Signature Prediction Experiment (a field study).

23 CMAQ: Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling System, developed by EPA.

24 CAMx: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions, developed by ENVIRON Corporation.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 25

should rely on modeling of full 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 quality 

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 qualitative procedures such as 

reviewing weather maps and wind patterns, or more quantitative procedures, such as 

Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis or a principal component analysis (PCA).

2007 Ozone Plan‘s episode selection is discussed in Chapter 3 and in the Protocol. The 

rich meteorological and air quality database developed during 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 including some from instrumented airplanes made during five intensive 

operational periods (IOPs). The chosen July 31-August 2, 2000 episode coincided with one of 

the IOPs. Meteorological and air quality characteristics of this episode are detailed starting at 

Protocol p. 14 (pdf. 21). The maximum 1-hour ozone concentration was 151 ppb and occurred on 

August 2nd at Edison, southeast of Bakersfield in the southern SJV. The maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration was 106 ppb and occurred on August 2nd 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 ozone 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 occurred on July 8th at Parlier. The maximum 8-hour ozone concentration in the SJV was 

122 ppb and occurred on July 11th 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-hour 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 the July 2000 and July 1999 episodes, especially after initial modeling of the September 

2000 episode 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‘ ozone 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 finds 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 that affect the nonattainment area and may be subject to control strategies. 

Isolated nonattainment areas that are not affected by regional transport of ozone and its 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 this category. The modeling domain should be designed so that all major upwind source 

areas that influence the downwind nonattainment area are included in the modeling domain. The 

influence of boundary conditions should be minimized to the extent possible. Guidance p. 153 

(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 grid 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 nested 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 estimation of mixing heights and avoids unrealistic step increases in mixing; 

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

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

generally be coarser. Recent applications of one atmosphere models (with model tops at 100 

millibars) have used anywhere from 12 to 21 vertical layers with 8-15 layers approximately 

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

(PBL). Guidance p. 159 (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 of 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 San 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, all 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 layers is consistent with the range in the Guidance. EPA 

finds the chosen modeling domain is adequate for the attainment demonstration.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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

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

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

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

regional or global chemistry model (i.e., 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 interest 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 initial 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 were 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, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Protocol, p. 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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).

EPAfinds 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 Model (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 that can reasonably be 

expected to influence local concentrations of ozone, and/or PM2.5. 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 models 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 quality 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 be several options for specifying the planetary boundary 

layer scheme or the cumulus parameterization. In many situations, the ―optimal‖ configuration 

cannot be determined without performing an initial series of sensitivity tests which consider 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 29

various combinations of physics options over specific time periods and regions. While these tests 

may not ultimately conclude that any one configuration is clearly superior at all times and in all 

areas, it is recommended that these sensitivity tests be completed, as they should lead to a 

modeling analysis that is best-suited for the domain and period being simulated. Typically, the 

model configuration which yields predictions that provide the best statistical match with 

observed data over the most cases (episodes, regions, etc.) is the one that should be chosen, 

although other more qualitative information can also be considered. Additionally, model 

configurations should be designed to account for the pollutants and time periods that are of most 

interest. 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 model25, 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 for SIPs, including by CARB, and so was chosen as 

the meteorological model.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s meteorological model domain consists of three nested grids. The 

innermost is just larger than the photochemical domain that it supplies meteorological fields to; it 

has 189 x 189 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 the Pacific Ocean, and that extends from 

southern Canada to the tip of the Baja California peninsula. Protocol 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 2000 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 30

San Joaquin 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 outer grids (2000 episode only). The Protocol also 

states that many combinations of model options were tested before settling on the final choices. 

Some of these options are discussed in the following subsection on meteorological model 

performance.

EPA finds 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 Performance

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). A 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 31

second objective of the evaluation should be to identify and quantify the existing biases and 

errors in the meteorological predictions in order to allow for 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 meteorological parameters will 

include: comparisons of the means, mean bias, mean normalized bias, mean absolute error, mean 

absolute normalized error, root mean square error (systematic and unsystematic), and an index of 

agreement. For modeling exercises over large domains and entire 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 potential 

phenomenological analysis, many regional air quality modeling exercises attempt to assess the 

effects of transport of emissions from one area to a downwind area with an intent to establish 

source-receptor relationships. For these types of modeling analyses, accurate transport wind 

trajectories are needed to properly establish these 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 various subregions of the SJV. They generally show results averaged over multiple sites within each subregion, and are only a subset of the many site-specific plots that were examined during 

development of the meteorological modeling. There are a) time series plots over the days of each 

episode showing observed and simulated wind speed, wind direction, or temperature, b) scatter 

plots of wind speed gross error against wind speed root mean square error, and c) scatter plots of 

temperature gross error against 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 

included 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) 

meteorological towers. CARB notes that FDDA improved results, but excluding the 2 meter data 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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, wind 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 morning. 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 overpredicted during the morning. 

The simulations were the result of substantial 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 different 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 

initial NOAA run of MM5 was used for the air quality modeling. (See results summary 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 undertaken. These included comparison 

of modeled and observed wind patterns, to ensure that the model is reproducing 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 wind 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 consistent with the EPA Guidance recommendations for a 

phenomenological evaluation. EPA finds 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 emission 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), NOx, and CO. Second, modelers must collect ―ancillary data‖ associated 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 vertically allocate emission inventories 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 33

to the resolution needed by air quality models. 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 emissions 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 for monthly and weekly variations, diurnal profiles of 

emissions, temperature dependence of emissions from some source types, 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 speciation of NOx into NO and NO2.

The Protocol‘s description of the emissions input process is fairly comprehensive, and 

covers all the key topics in the EPA Guidance. EPA finds that the emission inventory prepared 

for input to the air quality model is adequate 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 

ability 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 error (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 

that 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 monitor 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 model 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 analyses, and 

sensitivity analyses. Guidance p. 208 (pdf. 217). Observational models include the use of 

indicator species ratios that give clues about which processes are dominant, and whether VOC or 

NOx is the limiting precursor for ozone formation. Probing tools include source apportionment 

tools that track the chemical products of emissions from specified source groups, the direct 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 retrospective 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, alternative meteorological models or model setups, alternative vertical layer schemes, 

and finer or coarse grid resolution. All of these methods can help to determine whether the model 

responds in a physically reasonable way to change, and to identify inputs that may 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 F26. Chapter 3 states: ―In general, modeling of these 

episodes met performance standards, but some concentrations 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, but rather the 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 evaluation 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 the 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 performance 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 subsection 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 NO2, 

Appendix F has scatter plots of normalized 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 whether each day meets the RRF inclusion criteria for each sub-region (tables on p. F103 (pdf. 105)). The time series plots start at p. F-104 pdf.106, and the scatter plots start at p. F109 (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 is 

stated to be predicted well. Performance for NO2 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 Action

on 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 NO2 is stated 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 Central 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 good.

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 NOx 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 responded 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 NOx 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 Performance Evaluation table of contents at p.F-59 pdf.61, but do not 

appear in some versions Appendix F. CARB provided the results in ―Results for Model Sensitivity Tests‖, file ―SJV 

OZONE SENSITIVITY TEST RESULTS, CHAPTER 4 -2011-08-30.pdf‖

28 NOx is mostly emitted as NO, which "titrates" ozone (O3) to oxygen (O2), so its first effect is to decrease 

ozone, even though the ultimate effect is to increase ozone further downwind. Thus, lower NOx means less ozone 

removal and higher ozone, at least nearby.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 finds the model performance 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 concentrations 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 (baseline) 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 observation-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 variability (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 ppb, 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 F29, 

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 within 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 Modeling Protocol has essentially the same discussion as in Appendix F, starting at p. 93 (pdf. 99).
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 year concentration within 15 

km. The ratio of the latter two is the RRF itself, which is not explicitly shown. Below each table 

are four ozone isopleth diagrams, which show ozone concentrations for various combinations of 

NOx and VOC emissions reductions (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 reductions), 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 NOx reduction it corresponds to, assuming zero percent benefit from additional 

VOC control), 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 NOx 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 diagrams‖, Chapter 3 states that ―it is 

assumed that emission patterns, VOC reactivity 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 diagram, 

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 finds 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 necessary 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 PM2.5 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 examine 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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. Guidance p. 29 (pdf. 38). EPA‘s 

MATS software can perform this calculation, but other 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. Guidance pp. 32 and 33 (pdf. 41 and 42), respectively.

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 data to create a set of spatial fields;

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

3. Apply gridded model RRFs to the gradient-adjusted spatial fields; and

4. Determine if any unmonitored areas are predicted to exceed the NAAQS in the future.

2007 Ozone Plan‘s unmonitored area analysis is discussed in CARB‘s Unmonitored Area 

Analysis 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 Unmonitored Area Analysis that uses EPA‘s 

MATS software. This analysis followed the four steps laid out in the 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 presumed 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 notes 

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 gradient 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 is an artifact of the modeling. EPA finds that the unmonitored area analysis was 

properly performed, and that its results support the attainment demonstration.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 Evidence 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 quality 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 results which may be 

inconclusive. The further the attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling contrary 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 modeled attainment test results. Guidance p. 17 (pdf. 26). Supplemental analyses 

could include additional modeling using alternative models and inputs, modeling apportionment 

and process analysis tools, alternative metrics (such as change in the number of grid cells above 

the NAAQS), trends in ambient air quality, trends in emissions, receptor modeling, and indicator 

species approaches.

TABLE B-1

Guidelines For Weight of Evidence Determinations

Results of Modeled Attainment Test

Supplemental Analyses

Ozone Annual PM2.5 24-Hour PM2.5

Future Design Value 

< 82 ppb, all 

monitor sites

Future Design Value 

< 14.5 μg/m3, all 

monitor sites

Future Design Value 

< 62 μg/m3, all 

monitor sites

Basic supplemental analyses 

should be completed to confirm 

the outcome of the modeled 

attainment test

Future Design Value 

82 - 87 ppb, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells

Future Design Value

14.5-15.5 μg/m3, at 

one or more 

sites/grid cells

Future Design Value 

62-67 μg/m3, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells

A weight of evidence 

demonstration should be 

conducted to determine if 

aggregate supplemental analyses 

support the modeled attainment 

test

Future Design Value 

> 88 ppb, at one or 

more sites/grid cells

Future Design Value 

> 15.5 μg/m3, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells

Future Design Value 

> 68 μg/m3, at one 

or more sites/grid 

cells

More qualitative results are less 

likely to support a conclusion

differing from the outcome of the 

modeled attainment test.

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 Staff Report, Appendix B has an 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.

17ff (pdf. 19ff). 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.

The 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 progress over the 1990-2005 period. The 8-hour 

ozone design value (which is the running 3-year average of the 4th highest daily ozone value for 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 for 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).

NOx and VOC (comparable to ―ROG‖ in the Plan documents) emissions have had a 

steady downward 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 NOx and VOC, and also the reactivity of the VOC mix, have also showed 

steady declines. Progress was fairly flat during 1999-2002, and NOx progress is less than for the 

VOC and reactivity metrics. Appendix F, Figure 5-13, p. F-152 (pdf. 154).

EPA finds that these analyses support the attainment demonstration prediction of ozone 

NAAQS attainment, and constitute an adequate weight of evidence determination.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 42

3. Conclusions

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. 

The air quality modeling documentation in Chapter 3 and Appendix F of the Plan and 

CARB‘s Unmonitored Area Analysis, contains all the elements required by EPA‘s modeling

guidance. The modeling is based on the best and most current information available at the time 

the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone 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 

meets the CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requirement that the plan provide for attainment of the 

NAAQS, and that the modeling in the 2007 Ozone Plan provides an adequate basis for the Plan‘s 

reasonably available control measures, 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 43

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures

1. Requirements 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 minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall 

provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ The 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule requires that for each nonattainment area that is required to submit an 

attainment demonstration, the state must also submit 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 § 51.912(d).

EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in the 

General Preamble at 1356030 and in a memorandum entitled ―Guidance on the Reasonably 

Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas,‖ John Seitz, Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 

1999 (Seitz memo).31 In summary, EPA guidance provides that to address the requirement to 

adopt all RACM, states should consider all potentially reasonable control measures for source 

categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are reasonably available for 

implementation in that area and whether they would, if implemented individually or collectively, 

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

EPA defines RACM as any potential control measure for application to point, area, onroad and non-road emissions source 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 April 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 

under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major stationary sources of NOx. In extreme areas, a major source is a 

stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons of VOC or NOx per year. See CAA sections 

182(e) and (f). 

Under the 8-hour ozone implementation rule, states are required to submit SIP revisions 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 deadline. See 40 CFR § 51.912(a).
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 these requirements which are not already either 

federally promulgated, part of the state‘s SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted 

in enforceable form as part of a state‘s attainment plan for the area. See 70 FR 71612, 71659.

2. RACM Analysis in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy are parts 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 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2007 State Strategy, the District, CARB, and the 

local agencies (through the SJV‘s eight metropolitan planning organizations (MPO)) each 

undertook a process to identify and evaluate potential reasonably available control measures that 

could contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. We describe 

each agency‘s efforts below.

a. District RACM Analysis

The District‘s RACM analysis and its results are described in Chapter 6 and Appendices 

H and I of the 2007 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 PM10 Plan (approved 69 FR 30005 (May 26, 2004)), the 2004 Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Plan (approved 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 2010)), and 2008 PM2.5 Plan (approved in part and 

disapproved in part on November 9, 2011 (76 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 revised 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 Action

on 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, 

workshops on the 2008 Ozone Plan and during public comment periods on the Plan; and

recommendations from CARB‘s 2003 audit of the District.

2007 Ozone Plan, pp. 6-2 to 6-3.

The identified potential measures, as well as existing District measures, are described by 

emissions inventory category in Appendix I of the Plan.

From this set of potential controls, the District developed a Stationary Source Regulatory 

Implementation Schedule (2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008) which gives 

the schedule for regulatory adoption and implementation of the selected RACM measures. See 

Table C-1 below. The schedule was developed based on a variety of factors, including:

technological feasibility and practicality of emission controls;

magnitude of emissions from the source category and likely emissions reductions;

cost, financial impacts, and potential for socioeconomic impacts (e.g., employment, 

profitability);

District authority and enforceability of emissions reductions;

rate and timing of emissions reductions;

public acceptability, including interests and concerns of community members;

pollutants reduced – NOx, or VOC or both;

any potential adverse environmental impacts; and.

potential for disparate environmental impacts (environmental justice).

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 studies can be found in the 

2010 Ozone MCR, section 3.2 and the SJV 2011 PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.2.

The Plan also includes descriptions of the District‘s incentive programs (which target onand off-road engine replacement with an emphasis on diesel engines), its innovative strategies 

program including its Fast Track emissions reductions measures, and public education efforts. 

See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapters 7 and 8, 2010 Ozone MCR, Sections 5 and 6, and SJV 2011 

PM2.5 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 NOx emissions reductions from transportation 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, the 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 Action

on 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.

TABLE 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 2010

S-SOL-11 Solvents 4661/4662/4663 3

rd Q – 2007 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 2011 2011

S-COM-2 Boilers, Steam Generators 

and Process Heaters (2 to 5 MMBtu/hr) 4307 3

rd Q – 2008 2020 2012 from 

incentives

S-COM-7 Glass Melting Furnaces 4354 3

rd Q – 2008 Varies 2008

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 – 2009 2012 2012

S-AGR-2 CAFO 4570 2

nd Q – 2010 2011 2011

S-SOL-6 Adhesives 4653 3

rd Q – 2010 2012 2012

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

The SJV MPOs developed a local RACM strategy which consisted of two parts: (1) 

evaluation of potential RACM for advancing the 8-hour ozone standard attainment date and (2) 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 

emissions reductions 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.

To identify potential measures, the MPOs reviewed measures from previous San Joaquin 

Valley RACM processes, more recent guidance materials, applicable SIPs, and suggestions 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 Section 108(f) 

transportation control measure categories.

Step 2. Develop emissions reduction estimates.

Emissions reductions estimates were developed for the CAA section 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 NOx reduction from each 

measure. Examples of these assumptions are given on p. 9-5 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. The total 

maximum reduction in NOx emissions that could be achieved from implementing all the TCM 

were estimated to be approximately 7 tpd in 2020 and 5 tpd in 2023. See 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 9-

6.

Step 3. Compare the potential emissions reductions 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 came from determining the NOx 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 

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

sites.

36

Given that the maximum feasible NOx reductions from potential local RACM were 5 tpd 

in 2023, the MPOs concluded that combination of local RACM would not advance attainment by 

a full year and therefore no further efforts to adopt local commitments for the Plan were 

necessary. 

Based on the above analysis, the MPOs determined that there were no additional local 

RACM, beyond those measures already adopted, that would advance attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone standard in the SJV and thus no additional adoption of measures was necessary. See 2007

Ozone Plan, 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 has now 

 

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

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

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 48

been adopted, focuses on achieving the most cost-effective emissions 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 public consultation process to 

identify potential SIP measures. This process is described in the 2007 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 PM2.5

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,

CARB staff released a revised draft of the Proposed State Strategy that incorporated changes 

based on further staff analysis and public comments. See CARB Resolution 07-28, p. 3.

From this process, CARB identified and committed to develop 15 new defined measures

to address California‘s ozone and PM2.5 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. Many, 

if not most of these measures, were being proposed for adoption for the first time anywhere in 

the nation. They built on CARB‘s already extensive existing program to address emissions of 

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

programs, as well as from fuels and consumer products. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 38. Table C2 lists these measures and their expected action and implementation 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 action 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 www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/

2007sip.htm.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 49

TABLE 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 Resolution 07-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 50

TABLE C-3

Updated 2007 State Strategy: Ozone SIP Measures

July 2011

Defined State Measure Action

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) 2007-2009

Expanded Vehicle Retirement 2007

Modification to Reformulated Gasoline Program 2007

Cleaner In-Use Heavy Duty Trucks 2007, 2008, 2010

Auxiliary Ship Cold Ironing and Clean Technologies 2007-2008

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuels

Fuel: 2008-2011

Engines: 2008

Port Truck Modernization 2007, 2008, 2010

Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives (enforceable agreement) 2008

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts 2007, 2010

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment 2007, 2010

Cleaner 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 Revisions, p. A-7.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 51

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

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 technologically 

and economically feasible for implementation in the SJV. The process and the criteria the 

District used to select certain measures and reject others are consistent with EPA‘s RACM 

guidance. We also describe above the measure evaluation processes undertaken by the SJV 

MPOs and the State. Their processes are also consistent with EPA‘s RACM guidance. See 

General Preamble at 13560 and Seitz memo.

Because the SJV is designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the 1997 8-

hour ozone standards, CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require the implementation of RACT for 

all major sources of VOC or NOx and on all VOC sources covered by an EPA-issued control 

techniques guideline document. California submitted the District‘s revised 8-hour ozone RACT 

SIP (adopted April 16, 2009) on June 18, 2009. We have partially approved and partially 

disapproved this RACT SIP based on our determination 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 Available Control Technology for Ozone; Final rule, signed 

December 15, 2011.38 Table C-4A below lists SJV District rules that covering these seven

categories. Six of these seven source categories emit VOC emissions, only one, solid fuel-fired

boilers, emits NOx. 

TABLE C-4A

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

NOx

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 

scheduled for adoption by SJVUAPCD in 

December 2011.

 

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

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 52

TABLE C-4A

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 yetsubmitted

Fumigant Volatile Organic 

Compound Regulations VOC California Department of Pesticide Regulation – submitted August 2, 2011

Source: 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.

During the comment period on our proposed approval of the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone 

SIP, we received suggestions on additional potential 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-4B

below. 

TABLE C-4B

Commenter-Suggested Potential RACM for the SJV 8-Hour Ozone SIP

Measures Pollutant Applicable District Rule/Comments

Open burning controls VOC/NOx

Rule 4301. Commenter made no specific 

suggestion for additional reductions.

Tighter glass melting standards NOx

Rule 4354. Commenter made no specific 

suggestion for additional reductions.

Improved solid-fuel fired boiler 

standards NOx

Rule 4352. Commenter made no specific 

suggestion for additional reductions.

Tighter animal feeding controls VOC Rule 4570. Commenter made no specific 

suggestion for additional reductions.

Advanced boiler controls 

including conversion from coal 

to natural gas

NOx

Rule 4320. Other than converting coal-fired 

boilers to natural gas, the commenter made no 

other specific suggestions for additional 

reductions.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 53

TABLE C-4B

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/NOx

Unknown. Commenter does not identify 

either retrofit controls or the sources.

39

Eliminating the use of prebaseline emissions reductions 

credits in the new source 

review program

VOC/NOx 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 statutory 

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 NOx 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 NOx

reductions and no reasonable level of VOC reductions will expedite attainment absent significant 

NOx 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-suggested potential RACM/RACT (including prohibiting the use of prebaseline 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, 

2024 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 NOx emissions in 

 

39

 This commenter also asserted that neither EPA or the District had evaluated whether it was reasonable to 

the apply 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 NOx). As we discuss in our response to this comment, almost all of 

the District prohibitory rules already 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 extreme 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 demonstrates that the most expeditious 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. 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 Table 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 

NOx 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 adopted 

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 

2007 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 Received on the Proposed Approval of the RACM Demonstration

In response to our proposed approval of the RACM demonstration, we received

comments 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 comments that objected 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 sources. 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 complies with the CAA section 172(c)(1) requirement for RACM.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 55

TABLE 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 NOx 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 coalfired boilers). 

Solid fuel-fired boilers are projected to emit 4.7 tpd of NOx 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 noncreditable measures (Rule 9510 

and Rule 4702). 

Reductions from Rule 9510 are currently not creditable. See 76 FR 

26609 (May 9, 2011).1 Reductions 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, Staff Report on Rule 4702 (August 18, 

2011)

- 2.5

E

Remaining enforceable 

commitments. 

Calculated by subtracting from CARB‘s 2023 commitment of 46 tpd 

NOx (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.

0.0
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 56

TABLE 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 NOx 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 reductions.

0

I

Expansion of retrofit controls to 

non-major sources

Commenter provided insufficient information for EPA to estimate 

potential emissions reductions.

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 26
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 57

TABLE 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 NOx in tpd 

2023

technology measures)

1

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

on 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 control measures needed for 

attainment be implemented no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 40 

CFR § 51.908(d). The attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately

preceding a nonattainment area‘s attainment date. 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 approved, federally promulgated, or otherwise 

SIP creditable. EPA, however, recognizes that circumstances exist that warrant the initial use of 

enforceable state commitments in place of these adopted measures. It believes that the CAA 

allows approval of such enforceable commitments as elements of a CAA control strategy 

requirement when they are limited in scope. The language in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

172(c)(6), given above, is quite broad, allowing a SIP to contain any ―means or techniques‖ that 

EPA determines are ―necessary or appropriate‖ to meet CAA requirements, such that the area 

will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the designated date. Furthermore, the 

express allowance for ―schedules and timetables‖ demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place before a SIP could be fully approved.

Commitments approved by EPA under CAA section 110(k)(3) are enforceable by EPA 

and citizens under, respectively, CAA sections 113 and 304. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced actions against states that failed to comply 

with them: see, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), 

aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 

848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. 

granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air 

Quality Mgt. Dist., No. CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to 

meet its commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP under CAA 

section 179(a)(4), which starts an 18-month period for the state to correct the nonimplementation before mandatory sanctions are imposed.

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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 59

2. Control 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 measures requirements into two categories: baseline measures and 

control strategy measures.

As the term is used here, baseline measures are federal, State, and District rules and 

regulations adopted prior to 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 

2023 and beyond. 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, p. 1. Reductions from these measures are 

incorporated into the baseline inventory and, for the most part, not individually quantified. These 

measures provide the majority of emissions reductions needed to attain the 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 emissions reductions needed beyond the baseline measures to 

demonstrate RFP and attainment, meet RACM/RACT, and/or provide for contingency measures.

We evaluate the control strategy measures in this section. Baseline measures are listed in 

the Appendices A and B to this TSD.

a. District Control Strategy Measures and Commitments

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District identified and committed to adopting and 

implementing 19 new control measures for VOC or NOx. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1 

(revised December 18, 2008) and SJVUAPCD Governing Board 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.

Reductions anticipated to be achievable from each rule at the time the 2007 Ozone Plan 

was adopted are listed in Table D-2. In Table D-3, we give the current SIP submittal and 

approval status of the measures in the Plan. In Table D-4,we show the emissions reductions 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 and for other CAA 

purposes.

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

insufficient information was available to evaluate the feasibility of implementing them in the San 

Joaquin Valley. For these measures, the District developed a schedule for performing feasibility 

studies. See 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 

emissions 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 60

TABLE 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 – 2007

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 

infeasible 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 2010
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 61

TABLE 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 NOx limits –

2014-2018 2009 NOx 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 – 2009

December 

2009 2012 2011 2012 2011

S-AGR-2 CAFO 4570 2

nd Q – 2010 October 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011

S-SOL-6 Adhesives 4653 3

rd Q – 2010 September 

2010 2012 2011 2012 2011

Source: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008. Actual information from specific rules.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 62

TABLE D-2

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Specific Rule Commitments

(tons per summer day)

NOx Emissions Reductions

2008 2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.5 3.5 3.4

S-COM-5 Stationary 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 NOx Reductions 2.3 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2

VOC Emissions Reductions 

2008 2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 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 1.08
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 63

TABLE D-2

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 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: 2007 Ozone Plan, Table 6-1, revised December 18, 2008.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 64

TABLE D-3

Approval and Submittal Status of SJVUAPCD Rules in the 2007 Ozone Plan

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 Organic Solvent Degreasing Approved 74 FR 37948 (July 30, 2009) 

Rule 4663 Organic Solvent. 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 52894 (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, 2011
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 65

TABLE D-3

Approval and Submittal Status of SJVUAPCD Rules in the 2007 Ozone Plan

Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction Submitted New Rule
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 66

TABLE D-4

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted1

(tons per summer day)

NOx Emissions Reductions

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

S-COM-5 Stationary Gas Turbines 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

S-COM-1 Large, Medium and Small 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 NOx reductions from rules as adopted 3.6 8.4 11.3 11.8 12.6 13.0

Commitment to total NOx reductions 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2

NOx reductions 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 67

TABLE D-4 – CONTINUED

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Estimated Emissions Reductions for 2007 Ozone Plan Rules As Adopted1

(tons per summer day)

VOC Emissions Reductions

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 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 reductions from rules as adopted 34.9 38.3 40.5 42.0 43.9 45.8

Commitment to total VOC reductions 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3

VOC reductions 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 Rules with no estimated reductions are not shown. 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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)

NOx Emissions Reductions

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 2023

S-AGR-1 Open Burning 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9

S-COM-5 Stationary 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 NOx Reductions from Rules 3.6 6.2 10.3 11.1 12.0 12.6

Commitment to total NOx reductions 4.4 6.0 6.3 7.8 8.0 8.2

NOx reductions remaining as commitment 0.8 -0.2 -4.0 -3.3 -4.0 -4.6
TSD for the Final Action

on 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

2011 2012 2014 2017 2020 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 Adhesives10.6 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 total VOC reductions 15.3 26.5 40.5 42.2 44.5 46.3

VOC reductions remaining as commitment -19.6 -11.2 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.9

1

 Rule approved between our proposal to approve the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP and our final action.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 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 emissions 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. 

The 2007 State Strategy includes enforceable commitments to achieve specific aggregate 

reductions of NOx and VOC in the SJV by certain dates. See Table D-6 below. The nature of this 

commitment is described in the State Strategy as follows:

The total emissions reductions from the new measures necessary to attain the 

federal standards are an enforceable State commitment in the SIP. While the 

proposed State Strategy includes estimates of the emissions reductions from each 

of the individual new measures, it is important to note that the commitment of the 

State Strategy is to achieve the total emissions reductions necessary to attain 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 reductions, the State still commits to achieving the total aggregate 

emissions reductions, whether this is realized through additional reductions from 

the new measures or from alternative control measures or incentive programs. If 

actual emission decreases occur in any air basin for which emissions reduction

commitments have been made that are greater than the projected emissions 

reductions from the adopted measures in the State Strategy, the actual emission 

decreases may be counted toward meeting CARB‘s total emissions reduction

commitments.

Id.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 71

Table D-6

CARB Commitments to Specific Aggregate Emissions Reductions

(tons per summer day)

2014 2017 2020 2023

2023

CAA 

§182(e)(5)

VOC 23 —124 25 —1

NOx 17.1288-93 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 

technologies provision.

2

 As modified in the final approval of the SJV 2008 PM2.5 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, the State has already adopted and EPA has approved or is in the process of granting 

waivers under CAA section 209 to most of these measures. These 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 

Action Year Current Status

Smog Check Improvements 2007-2009

Elements approved 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 

2010)42

Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement (AB 118) 2007 Adopted by CARB, June 2009; by BAR, September 2010.

 

42

 California Assembly Bill 2289, passed in 2010, requires the Bureau of Automotive Repair to direct 

older vehicles to high performing auto technicians and test stations for inspection and certification effective 2013. 

Reductions shown for the SmogCheck program in the 2011 Progress Report and this TSD do not include reductions 

from AB 2289 improvements. CARB Progress Report supplement, attachment 5.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 72

Table D-7

2007 State Strategy Adopted Defined Measures

Current Status

State Measures Expected 

Action Year Current Status

Modification to 

Reformulated Gasoline 

Program

2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010)

Cleaner In-Use 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, 2009, 

2011

Approved, 74 FR 57074 (November 4, 

2009); 76 FR 27613 (May 12, 2011); and 

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, 2011 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 (submitting 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 measures 

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 increment of emissions reductions 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 provisions 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 73

Strategy was submitted in November 2007, CARB estimated that an additional 81 tpd in NOx

reductions beyond those already identified would be needed 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 NOx emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards. A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an 

attainment target level of 160 tpd NOx. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NOx emissions downward by 12 percent. 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 year inventory changes on the attainment target would be to perform new air quality 

modeling. Both Agencies also recognize the time and effort involved in such modeling for an 

area that is as large and diverse as the San Joaquin Valley. 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 attainment 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 

recognized, 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 emissions 

reductions that are necessary to provide for attainment. See CARB Resolution 11-22, p. 3.

As EPA stated in its comment letter on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions,45 we 

believe that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NOx emissions level, based on the 

modeling provided in the Plan as submitted in 2007, provides the best available estimate of the 

NOx reductions needed to reach attainment. In our letter, we recommended that CARB commit 

to revising the modeling by a specific date and to commit, in the interim, to achieving a 75 

percent reduction in NOx from the revised 2002 base year levels by 2023. We noted that these 

recommendations are consistent with CARB‘s continuing strong commitment and efforts to 

achieve the emissions reductions needed for attainment of the air quality standards in the San 

Joaquin Valley and the rest of California.

In response, CARB included a commitment to update the 2007 SIP modeling for the SJV 

to reflect emissions inventory improvements and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the 

emissions reductions necessary to provide for attainment. CARB has stated that these 

 

44

 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.

45

 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Divisions, EPA Region 9 to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, July 20, 2011.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 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).

In 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 

categories. 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.

TABLE D-8

Original and Adjusted NOx 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: 295 227 -68.5

Source: 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, Attachment 1.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 75

TABLE D-9

Original and Adjusted VOC Baseline Emissions Inventories by Measure

(tons per summer day 2023)

State Measure Orig. Adjusted 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.

TABLE D-10

Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures

San Joaquin Valley

(tons per summer day, 2023)

State Measures NOx 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 

NOx reductions in the SJV are shown here.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 76

TABLE D-11

Creditable Emissions Reductions from State Defined Measures

San Joaquin Valley

(tons per summer day, 2023)

State Measure NOx 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 Conclusions

a. Baseline Measures

As shown in Table F-1, the majority of the NOx emissions 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 adopted control measures. See section II.G. of this TSD.

In the past two decades, SJVUAPCD has adopted (and in many cases revised each rule 

several times) more than 70 prohibitory rules that limit emissions of either NOx or VOC

including all of the rule adoptions/revisions it committed to as part of its 2007 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 categories of on- and off-road vehicles and 

engines, gasoline and diesel fuels, and numerous categories of consumer products. The State‘s 

measures fall within two categories: measures for which the State has obtained or has applied to 

obtain a waiver of federal pre-emption under CAA section 209 (―section 209 waiver measure‖ or 

 

46

 Reductions in the baseline also come from federal measures. These federal measures include EPA‘s 

national emissions standards for heavy duty diesel trucks (66 FR 5002 (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 37096 (June 30, 2008)). States are allowed to rely on reductions from federal measures in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and for other SIP purposes.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 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 standards. 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 when the statute was amended in 1970. The 1977 amendments to the CAA 

expanded the flexibility granted to California in order ―to afford California the broadest possible 

discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare.‖ 

(H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). So long as California determines that 

its motor vehicle standards are ―in the aggregate‖ at least as protective of public health and 

welfare as applicable federal standards, title II of the CAA requires EPA, unless it makes certain 

findings, to waive the Act‘s general prohibition on state adoption and enforcement of standards 

relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. See 

CAA section 209, subsections (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 standards for non-road vehicles or engines but 

allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with certain 

exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor vehicles.

In EPA‘s review of the California SIP and its many revisions, EPA has historically 

allowed emissions reduction credit for the motor vehicle emissions standards that are subject to a 

section 209(b) waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA 

for approval as part of the California SIP. In this respect, EPA treated these rules similarly to the 

federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed states to credit in 

their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision. 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.

 

47

 EPA position is also discussed in Brief of Respondents, Sierra Club, et al., And Committee for a Better 

Arvin, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, Case Nos. 10-71457 and 10-71458, May 5, 2011, pp. 33-44, a copy of which may be found in the docket for 

this rule.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 78

Credit for Federal measures, including those that establish on-road 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 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 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 California‘s on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP 

would apply in California). Likewise, Federal non-road vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding California non-road waiver measures. The constraints of the 

waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function 

similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193. 

Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs 

and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State 

program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the 

corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to 

most parts of the California program.

Second, as to enforceability, we 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 emissions reductions from CARB‘s rules in the same manner as 

EPA‘s mobile source enforcement program lends assurance to other state‘s SIPs in their reliance 

on emissions reductions from the FMVCP. While it is true that citizens and EPA are not 

authorized to enforce 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 quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-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 reductions from motor-vehicle-
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 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 newly-established 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 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.48 The San Joaquin Valley plan 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 ―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 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 the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public 

comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and 

supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 

revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver 

has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within 

the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. 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.

 

48

 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence 

of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 

revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 26, 1980).
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 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 interpretations that predate those 

amendments to remain in effect so long as not inconsistent with the Act. At the time it enacted 

section 193, Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s consistent 

prior treatment of California‘s motor vehicle 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 emissions 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 language to subsections (a) and (b) of section 209, subsection 

(e) sets forth the federal pre-emption of state emissions standards for non-road vehicles or 

engines but allows the State of California, and only California, a waiver of pre-emption (with 

certain exceptions) under criteria that mirror the section 209(b) waiver provisions for motor 

vehicles. Congress is presumed to be aware of agency interpretations and its subsequent revision 

of the statute to add subsection (e) without overruling EPA‘s interpretation with respect to motor 

vehicle standards is further compelling evidence that the Agency correctly interpreted 

congressional intent with respect to crediting California requirements subject to a section 209 

waiver without requiring California to submit the standards themselves to EPA for approval as 

part of the California SIP.

We believe that section 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 

1990, effectively ratified our long-standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver 

rules because Congress did not insert any language into the statute rendering EPA‘s treatment of 

California‘s motor vehicle standards inconsistent with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the 

California waiver provisions to most types of non-road vehicles and engines, once again 

reflecting Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in 

selecting the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the 

waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not 

consistent with providing California with the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, would add to the regulatory burden California 

faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with 

Congressional intent. In short, we believe that Congress intended California‘s mobile source 

rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two. 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 above, support EPA‘s long-standing interpretation of 

the CAA to allow California to rely on emissions reductions resulting from waiver measures in 

SIPs, notwithstanding the waiver measures‘ absence from the SIP itself.

ii. Non-waiver measures

These measures include improvements to California‘s inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program, SmogCheck, and cleaner burning gasoline and diesel regulations. Generally, the State‘s 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 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

We approve the SJVUAPCD's commitments to achieve specific aggregate emissions 

reductions of NOx and VOC by specific years as given in Table 6-2 of the 2007 Ozone Plan. We 

are not approving 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 in 

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

See Table D-7 above. We are also approving CARB‘s commitment to achieve the total aggregate 

emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate RFP and to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards in the SJV as given in CARB Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 

3, whether these reductions are realized from the new measures, alternative control measures, 

incentive programs, or other emissions decreases in the area. This commitment is shown in Table

D-6 above.

The SJV Ozone Plan and State Strategy, as adopted in 2007 demonstrates that a 75 

percent reduction in NOx emissions from the 2002 base year level is necessary to attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards. A 75 percent reduction from the 2002 base year level equates to an 

attainment target level of 160 tpd NOx. See 2007 State Strategy, p. 70. In the 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, CARB revised the 2002 base year NOx emissions downward by 12 percent. 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 year inventory changes on the attainment target would be to perform new air quality 

modeling. Both Agencies also recognize the time and effort involved in such modeling for an 

area that is as large and diverse as the San Joaquin Valley. 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 attainment target of the revision to this base year inventory 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 the revised baseline (an attainment 

target level of 141.3 tpd) is the outside bound of the NOx 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 82

achieve all emissions reductions that are necessary to provide for attainment. See CARB 

Resolution 11-22, p. 3.

As EPA stated in its comment letter on the proposed 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, we 

believe that the current model‘s estimate that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NOx

emissions level provides the best available estimate of the NOx 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 NOx from the 

revised 2002 base year levels by 2023. We noted that these recommendations are consistent with 

CARB‘s continuing strong commitment and efforts to achieve the emissions reductions needed 

for attainment of the air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley and the rest of California.

In response, CARB included a commitment to update the 2007 SIP modeling for the SJV 

to reflect emissions inventory improvements and reaffirmed its commitment to achieve the 

emissions reduction necessary to provide for attainment. CARB has stated that these 

commitments are sufficient to address the concerns we raised in our comment letter. See letter, 

Lynn Terry, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, August 10, 2011 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 Action

on 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

The CAA recognizes that ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme may have to 

rely in part on new or evolving technologies to achieve the emissions reductions 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 coordination among a number of 

government agencies.

CAA section 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 required 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), the state must submit its contingency measures no later than 3 

years before the original long-term measures were to have been implemented. These contingency 

measures must be adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with 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 measures to the extent necessary to ensure compliance with the emissions reduction 

requirements of section 182 (b)(1) and (c)(2). EPA 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 number of 

government agencies. See General Preamble at 13524. An attainment demonstration that relies 

on long-term new technology measures under section 182(e)(5) must identify any such measures 

and contain a schedule outlining the steps leading to final development and adoption of the 

measures. Id. The General Preamble also provides that EPA will set a schedule for implementing 

contingency measures upon making a finding of failure to meet a milestone, i.e., to achieve the 

 

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 Action

on 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 demonstrated that 81 tpd of NOx 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 in 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 NOx 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 2010 NOx

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 NOx 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 NOx. Id.

The District also evaluated the impact of accelerating the deployment of the cleanestavailable 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 and no other technological or 

logistical constraints, portions of the SJV would still not meet the 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 federal 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 State Strategy Status Report, pp. 25-27 and 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix A, pp. A-8 to A-12.

To implement the long-term strategy, CARB has committed to a process that will help 

ensure that the long-term measures are adopted and that reductions are achieved 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 periodic 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 Chapter 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 Action

on 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 strategy 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 to 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) developing schedules for moving from control technology research 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 

committing to the development, testing, and deployment of new sustainable technologies to 

accelerate progress in meeting air quality goals. The goal of the MOA is to improve air quality 

by aligning agency research resources, where possible and appropriate, to evaluate innovative 

technologies that have the potential 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 federal 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.

The 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. 25-27. 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 sources from a variety of emissions 

sources such as energy production facilities, farms, and agricultural processing operations. The 

city 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: 

Potential co-benefits from California‘s climate change programs where State 

legislation (Assembly Bill 32 – Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)) 

aims to reduce greenhouse gases (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 PM2.5.

California‘s Air Quality 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 zeroemission vehicles and other advanced technologies today in order to achieve the 

large-scale reductions needed in the future. California‘s large funding 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 encouraging production economies of scale. AQIP is also 

providing vehicle purchaser incentives for zero-emissions passenger vehicles, 

plug-in hybrid cars, electric lawnmowers, and demonstration projects for cleaner 

marine and locomotive engines.

California‘s annual 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 pollution 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 and 

implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by the beginning of the 2023 

ozone season. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. A-8. 

CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 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 Revisions, 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 Revisions, 

Appendix A, p. A-8. 

In addition, the District is pursuing innovative strategies. Its ―Fast Track‖ strategy 

includes opportunities to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks by shifting goods movement 

to lower-emission alternatives, such as short-sea shipping. In 2010, the U.S. Department of 

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

grant to move goods between Oakland and the two inland ports over the San Joaquin-Sacramento 

Delta. 

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

strategic approach to encouraging innovation and development of new emissions reduction

technologies. The TAP will consist of an ongoing review of new technology concepts, 

interagency partnerships, funding for technology advancement programs, and collaborations to 

build and expand local capacity for research and development in the SJV. For more information 

about the SJV TAP, See http://www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/TAP/tap_idx.htm. In addition 

to the TAP, the District has established a Regional Energy Efficiency Strategy to support 

 

52

 See letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator,

EPA Region 9, dated August 29, 2011.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 consumption 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 

provide 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 Ozone Plan relies on 

the State‘s and District‘s long-term strategy to develop 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 technology 

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. These contingency 

measures must be adequate to produce emissions reductions sufficient, in conjunction with other 

approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emissions reductions required by CAA sections 

182(b)(1) or (c)(2) and to attain by the applicable dates. See CAA 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 Program 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 includes commitments by CARB to develop and submit 

revisions to the Strategy by no later than 2020 that will: (1) reflect modifications to the 2023 

emissions reduction target based on updated science and (2) identify additional strategies and 

implementing agencies needed to achieve the needed reductions by 2023. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

Revisions, p. A-8. The District 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 88

CARB has also committed to achieve 81 tpd of NOx 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 compared to measures already adopted in regulatory form or scheduled for nearterm 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 increase 

in the amount or relative proportion of section 182(e)(5) new technology measures without a 

convincing showing in a SIP revision that the technologies relied upon in the 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, 57855. We received comments objecting to this proposed 

approval on the basis that the provision failed to meet the requirements and intent of the CAA. 

We 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 Action

on 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) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

serious or above to submit plans that demonstrate attainment of the applicable standard as 

expeditiously as practicable but no later than the 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) technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing 

violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the nonattainment area;

(2) adopted 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 70 FR 71612, 71615.

The requirements for items 1 and 2 are described in the emissions inventory, air quality 

modeling, and RACM sections of this TSD. Requirements for item 3 are discussed in the 

contingency measures sections of this TSD. In this section, we evaluate how 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 2007 Ozone Plan is given in Section 11.2. and is 

summarized in Table F-1 below. Table F-2 shows the contributions by the District and CARB to 

the control strategy.

Since adoption and submittal of the 2007 State Strategy and the 2007 Ozone Plan, both 

CARB and the District have adopted most of the measures in their Strategy/Plan. Many of these 

measures have been approved by or submitted to EPA. See Tables 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 effect of these revisions to the attainment 

demonstration are shown in Table F-3. 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 90

TABLE F-1

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV‘s

Ozone Attainment Demonstration as Submitted November 2007

(tons per summer day 2023)

VOC NOx

A 2006 baseline emissions level 450 650

B 2023 attainment target level 342 160

C

Total reductions needed from 2006 baseline levels to attain 

in 2023 108 490

D 2023 baseline emissions level 409 295

E Reductions from baseline measures 41 355

Percentage of reductions needed for attainment from 

baseline measures 38% 72%

F Reductions needed from control strategy measures 67 135

Percentage of reductions needed for attainment from 

control strategy measures including new technologies 62% 28%

Source: CARB Staff Report on the 2007 Ozone Plan, Tables 6 (Lines A, B and D) and 14 (Lines C, E, and F). 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 91

TABLE F-2

Summary of Control Strategy Reductions by Agency in the Attainment 

Demonstration as Submitted November 2007

(tons per summer day 2023)

VOC NOx

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

Percentage of total control strategy reductions from District 

commitments 70% 7%

D State commitments 23 46

Percentage of total control strategy reductions from State 

commitments 30% 34%

E New technology – 801

Percentage 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 NOx reduction from new technologies. See CARB Resolution 07-28 

(September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 92

TABLE F-3

Summary of Reductions Needed for SJV‘s

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Updated July 2011

(tons per summer day 2023)

VOC NOx

A 2002 base year emissions level 457.5 565.2

B 2023 attainment target level 342 1411

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) 338.6 195

Reductions from baseline measures and control strategy 

measures adopted prior to June 20112 118 370

Percentage 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

Percentage 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 Conclusions

a. Enforceable Commitments in the Attainment Demonstrations

A portion of the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-

hour ozone standards 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 demonstrate attainment and RFP and to meet other CAA requirements 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 the 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 PM2.5 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 development 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 NOx emissions reductions and a substantial 

fraction of the VOC reductions needed to demonstrate RFP and attainment in the SJV come from 

rules and regulations that were adopted prior to 2007 (that is, from the baseline measures). As a 

result of these State and District efforts, most sources in the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment 

area are currently subject to stringent rules adopted prior to the State Strategy‘s and the Plan‘s 

development, leaving fewer opportunities and generally more technologically and economically

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

Strategy, the District and CARB identified potential control measures that could contribute many 

of the additional emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 2007 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 Ozone SIP. These 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 factor, we look to see if the commitment addresses a limited portion of a 

statutory requirement, such as the amount of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate RFP 

 

53

 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's interpretation of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency's use and application of the three-factor test in approving enforceable 

commitments in the Houston-Galveston 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 rely on 

enforceable commitments to aggregate emissions reductions to demonstrate RFP or to meet any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. Therefore, we discuss here only those enforceable commitments relied on to demonstrate 

attainment.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin Valley are 7.7 tpd of VOC and 4.6 

tpd of NOx (the remaining portion of CARB‘s 2023 NOx commitment). When compared to the 

total reductions needed to demonstration attainment, the remaining portion of the enforceable 

commitments represents at most 6.7 percent of the needed VOC and 1.1 percent of the needed 

NOx. Historically, EPA has approved SIPs with enforceable commitments in the range of 10 

percent or less. See our approval of the SJV PM10 Plan (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 PM2.5 SIP (76 FR 69896 (November 

9, 2011)), and approval of the South Coast PM2.5 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 enforceable 

commitments for the San Joaquin Valley.

The District has already exceeded its commitments for reducing NOx emissions for the 

attainment year of 2023. See Table D-4. It also has already adopted rules (Rules 9510 and 4320) 

that are projected to achieve NOx reductions in the attainment year. These reductions, however, 

are not currently creditable to the attainment and RFP demonstrations. In addition, it has adopted

revisions to District Rule 4702 (Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines) that are likely to 

achieve substantial NOx 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 estimated 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 work to identify and adopt 

additional measures to reduce emissions. 

Beyond the rules discussed above, both CARB and the District have well-funded 

incentive grant programs to reduce emissions from the on- and off-road engine fleets. Reductions 

from several of these programs have yet to be quantified and/or credited in the attainment 

demonstration. See, for example, SJV PM2.5 Progress Report, section 2.356

 

55 CAA 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 remain as commitments.

56 SJVUAPCD, 2011 PM2.5 Plan Progress Report, Draft March 2011.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 District are capable of meeting their enforceable commitments to adopt measures to 

reduce emissions of NOx and/or VOC to the levels needed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards in the San Joaquin Valley by June 15, 2024.

TABLE F-4

Reductions Needed for Attainment Remaining as Commitments

based on Approved or Proposed for Approval Measures

(tons per summer day in 2023)

NOx 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 NOx, reductions 

from new technologies (C-D-E)

53.2 7.7

G

Reductions remaining as CARB enforceable 

commitments1 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

Percentage of total reductions needed remaining 

as commitments not including NOx, reductions 

from new technologies 

1.1% 6.7%

1

 Calculated by subtracting from CARB‘s 2023 46 tpd NOx commitments (Table 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 NOx emissions reductions remaining as commitments. See 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 96

In order to meet the commitments to reduce emissions to the 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 committed 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 

(when 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 in sections II.A. and II.B., we are approving

the revised emissions inventory 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 expeditious attainment through the 

implementation of all RACM. As discussed above in section II.C., we are approving the RACM

demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1).

Third, we must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are 

creditable and are sufficient to provide for attainment. As shown on Table F-4, the 2007 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 aggregate tonnage reductions of VOC 

and/or NOx in the near term from available and identified technologies and commitments to 

adopt measures to achieve specific aggregate tonnage reductions of NOx 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 warranted them and the 

commitments meet three criteria. As discussed in above, we 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 demonstrated their capability to meet their commitments, and 3) the 

commitments are for an appropriate timeframe. Based on these conclusions, we are approving

the enforceable commitments as part of the attainment demonstration in the SJV 2007 8-hour

Ozone SIP.

CAA section 182(e)(5) allows plans 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 these provisions. For the 

reasons discussed in section II.E., we find that California has met the conditions for relying on 

new technology provisions in its attainment demonstration for the SJV. 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 NOx emissions from the 2002 base year level is 

necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Since the adoption of the SJV ozone SIP in 

2007, the base year NOx emissions level has be revised downward by 12 percent due to new 

inventory methodologies and data. 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 2007 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 information by December 31, 2014 or by the date the SIPs are 

due for the revised 8-hour ozone standard whichever comes first. See CARB Resolution 11-22, 

p. 3 and 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B-8. EPA is approving this commitment.

EPA believes that a 75 percent reduction from the base year NOx emissions level from 

the existing modeling provides the best currently available estimate of the NOx reductions 

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

achieve the reductions needed for attainment in the SJV. See CARB Resolution 07-28 

(September 27, 2007), Appendix B, p. 3, 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 13, and CARB 

Resolution 11-22, p. 3. It has also stated that these commitments are sufficient to address the 

attainment needs of the SJV. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions Supplement, p. 1. As discussed 

above, CARB‘s commitment to achieving 81 tpd of NOx emissions reductions from new 

technologies is sufficient to cover any reductions that may be needed for attainment due to the 

changes to the base year inventory.

For the foregoing reasons, we 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 attainment 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 not approvable, the new 

technology provisions were not approvable, and the attainment demonstration relied on 

emissions reductions from measures (e.g., waiver measures) that were not SIP-creditable. We 

have reviewed these comments and find that none cause us to revise our proposed approval of 

the attainment demonstration. A summary of these comment and our complete responses can be 

found in section III of this TSD. 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 98

G. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

1. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

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

further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as ―such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [title 1, part D] or may reasonably be 

required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable [standard] 

by the applicable date.‖

CAA section 182(b)(1) specifically requires that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate or higher demonstrate a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions between 

the years of 1990 and 1996. For ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or higher, CAA 

section 182(c)(2)(B) also requires the SIPs to demonstrate a three percent per year reduction 

(averaged over three-year periods) of ozone precursor emissions from 1997 until attainment. 

CAA section 182(b)(1)(D) prohibits states 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 standards. It establishes 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 that covers the entire 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 

§ 51.910(d) and 70 FR 71612, 71615. SJV 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, the ozone implementation rule requires an 

RFP plan providing for an average of 3 percent per year of VOC and/or NOx emissions 

reductions for (1) the 6-year period beginning January 1 of the year following the year used for 

the baseline emissions inventory; and (2) all remaining 3-year periods after the first 6-year period 

out to the area's applicable attainment date. 40 CFR § 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). Except as specifically 

provided in CAA section 182(b)(1)(C), emissions reductions from all SIP-approved, federally 

promulgated, or otherwise SIP-creditable measures that occur after the 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 FR 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 year other than 2002 to comply with the CAA‘s RFP provisions. 40 CFR § 51.910(d).
TSD for the Final Action

on 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. This revised demonstration incorporates the inventory revisions described 

in section 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

CARB calculated the RFP target levels following the method provided in the ozone 

implementation rule and preamble. See 40 CFR § 51.910 and 70 FR 71612, 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 rules from 

the RFP calculations.

60 We have also removed the 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, approves the RFP demonstration.

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the RFP Demonstration

We proposed to approve the RFP demonstration in the 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP at 76 FR 

57846, 57861. We received no comments on our proposal.

 

59

 CARB refers 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 providing a 3 percent reserve in each milestone year.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 100

TABLE G-1

Revised 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 adjustment 0.0 12.4 17.8 22.4 25.4 26.4 26.5

C RACT correction 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

D

Adjusted baseline 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 year with existing 

measures

— 407.6 354.1 331.0 328.9 330.5 339.0

G

Required percent 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%

NOx

N Baseline 565.2 425.4 359.0 307.4 258.8 224.9 194.6

O MVCP adjustment 0.0 16.8 21.2 24.8 26.9 27.8 28.2

P

Adjusted 2002 baseline 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 101

TABLE G-1

Revised RFP Demonstration

(tons per summer day)

Year 2002 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

T

Reductions 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-30
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 102

TABLE 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 uncreditable 

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 

46531

— 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 adjustment 0.0 12.4 5.4 4.6 3.0 1.0 0.1

E

Adjusted baseline 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 percent 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 apparent shortfall 

in VOC, percent — 9.8% 6.5% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6% 28.6%

K

Percent shortfall previous 

provided by substitution — 0.0% 9.8% 9.6% 9.2% 15.4% 21.6%

L Percent actual shortfall — 9.8% -3.3% -0.4% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0%

NOx

M Baseline 565.2 425.4 359.0 307.4 258.8 224.9 194.6

N

Uncreditable reductions 

from Rule 4320 — 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.5

O

Uncreditable reductions 

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 adjustment 0 16.8 4.4 3.6 2.1 0.9 0.4

R Adjusted baseline in the 565.2 548.4 544.0 540.4 538.3 537.4 537.0
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 103

TABLE 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% 63.4%

U

Percent reductions since 

2002 already used for RFP 

substitution through last 

milestone

— 0% 9.8% 9.8% 9.8% 16.1% 22.3%

V

Percent reductions since 

2002 available for RFP 

substitution and 

contingency in the

milestone year

— 22.4% 24.1% 33.0% 41.8% 41.8% 41.1%

X

Percent change since 2002 

used for VOC substitution 

in the milestone year, 

percent

— 9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 6.2% 7.0%

Y

Percent change since 2002 

surplus after meeting 

substitution in the

milestone year

— 12.6% 24.1% 33.0% 35.6% 35.5% 34.1%

RFP met? — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

1

 At the time of EPA‘s proposed approval of 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP, we had not yet approved Rule 4653 

(Adhesives). We have now approved the rule and its reductions are now creditable.

TABLE 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 measures adopted prior to submittal of the 

2011 Ozone SIP Revisions. It does not include reductions from SJV Rule 

9510.

B (1-

3).

Currently uncreditable 

reductions from DPR‘s 

pesticide element and 

Rules 9410 and 9653

1

Reductions for the current MSY from District Rules 9410 and 9653

1

and 

CA DPR pesticide element are included in the Baseline. 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 104

TABLE 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 Baseline (line A) with the current MSY‘s 

Uncreditable reductions (lines B1-3) 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 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 B from Table 

G-1) and the previous MSY‘s adjustment (line 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 used in the 

calculation of the Apparent shortfall (line I). 

F Basis for reductions

This number is reduced by the Required percent change since previous 

MSY (line G) to calculate the Target VOC level (line H). In the 2008 

MSY, it is the same as the Adjusted baseline (line E). In subsequent 

MSYs, it is equal to the previous MSY‘s Target 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 (line F) reduced by the Required percentage (line G).

I Apparent shortfall The current MSY‘s Target VOC level (line H) minus the MSY‘s Adjusted 

baseline (line E).

J

Percent apparent shortfall 

in VOC, percent

The percentage shortfall calculated by dividing the MSY‘s Apparent 

shortfall (line I) by the current MSY‘s Adjusted baseline (line D).

K

Percent shortfall previously 

provided by substitution

The percentage of the VOC shortfall addressed by NOx substitution in 

previous MSY. This must be accounted for in subsequent MSY to prevent 

double-counting reductions.

L Percent actual shortfall 

The shortfall that must be addressed by NOx substitution in the current 

MSY in order to demonstrate RFP. Calculated as the current MSY‘s 

Percent apparent shortfall in VOC (line J) minus the current MSY‘s 

Percent shortfall previously provided by substitution (line K).

M NOx Baseline

The total summer season daily NOx 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 Revisions. 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 105

TABLE 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 NOx Baseline 

Baseline emissions with the uncreditable and non-creditable reductions 

removed. Used in the calculation of the Percent change since 2002 (line 

T). Calculated as the previous MSY‘s adjusted baseline (line R) minus the 

current MSY‘s MVCP (line Q).

S Change in NOx since 2002 Calculated as 2002 Baseline with uncreditable reductions removed (line P 

for 2002) minus current MSY‘s Adjusted NOx baseline (line R).

T

Percent change in NOx

since 2002

Percentage change in NOx emissions since 2002. Calculated as the current 

MSY‘s Change in NOx since 2002 (line S) divided by the current MSY‘s 

adjusted NOx baseline (line R).

U

Percent NOx reductions 

since 2002 already used for 

RFP substitution through 

last milestone year

The cumulative NOx reductions used for VOC substitution. The NOx

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 NOx since 2002 used for VOC substitution (line U) and 

the previous MSY‘s Change in NOx since 2002 used for VOC substitution 

in the milestone year (line V)

V

Percent NOx reductions 

since 2002 available for 

RFP substitution in 

milestone year

Remaining NOx reductions that are available for VOC substitution. 

Calculated as the current MSY‘s Percent change in NOx since 2002 (line 

T) minus the current MSY Percent NOx reductions since 2002 already 

used for RFP substitution and contingency through the last milestone year 

(line U).

X

Percent change in NOx

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 change since 2002 

surplus after meeting 

substitution in this 

milestone year

This is the surplus NOx reduction available this milestone year after 

providing the cumulative VOC substitutions. Calculated as the current 

MSY‘s Percent NOx reductions since 2002 available for RFP substitution 

(line V) minus the current MSY‘s Percent change in NOx since 2002 used 

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 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP, we had not yet approved Rule 4653 

(Adhesives). We have now approved the rule and its reductions are now creditable.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 TCM to Offset Emissions 

Increases from VMT Increases and to Provide for RFP and Attainment

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas classified as severe or extreme submit 

transportation control strategies and transportation control measures (TCM) sufficient to offset 

any growth in 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 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 section 

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 interpreted 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 TCM to Offset Emissions Increases from VMT 

Increases and to 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 NOx decline steadily from 2008 to 2023. This 

decline in emissions is due to EPA‘s and California‘s mobile source programs, California‘s clean 

fuels and SmogCheck programs, and CARB‘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 

RFP demonstrations, including demonstrating compliance with CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). The 

on-road emissions in Table H-1 are calculated using EMFAC2007, the most recent EPAapproved mobile source emissions model for California.

As described above in section II.C., the SJV MPOs 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 2007 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 approval of New 

Jersey‘s 15 percent ROP plan and other provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment 

area); 66 FR 23849 (May 10, 2001) (approval of the New York‘s attainment demonstration and related provisions 

for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area); 66 FR 57247 (November 14, 2001) (approval 

of the VMT offset plan for the Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment area); 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005)

(approval of the Washington, D.C. area‘s 1-hour attainment demonstration and related provisions); and 70 FR 34358 

(June 14, 2005) (approval of Atlanta‘s VMT plan).
TSD for the Final Action

on 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

2008-2023

(tons per summer day)

Year 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023

VOC 78 66 50 43 39 37

NOx 229 183 153 115 91 69

Source:2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Appendix B, page. B-3.

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Because VOC and NOx 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 find 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 states 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 decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for 

rehearing on this issue. Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 (consolidated), Docket Entry 41-1,

Petition for Panel Rehearing. The Ninth Circuit has yet to issue its mandate in this case, and 

EPA has not adopted the court‘s interpretation for the reasons set forth in the Agency‘s petition 

for rehearing, pending a final decision by the court.

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 meeting 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 sections 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 standards. Therefore, we approve the SIP as meeting the third element of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A); that is, to include TCM to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment.

 

63

 CARB only presented 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. There is nothing 

to indicate that mobile sources emissions in the SJV are likely to increase between milestone years before returning 

to their historic downward trend in the milestone years. 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 approve the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) at 76 FR 57846, 57863. We also proposed 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 VMT should the 9

th Circuit deny the Agency‘s 

petition for rehearing and issues its mandate in AIR before we finalized our action. As noted 

above, the 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 and 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 if EPA were to finalize the proposed disapproval, the area would be 

eligible for a protective finding under the transportation conformity rule because the submitted SIP contains adopted 

control measures and enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions reductions requirements for 

reasonable further progress and attainment. 40 CFR § 93.120(a)(3). See 76 FR 57846, 57863.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 areas classified as extreme must require 

each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler that emits 

more than 25 tpy of NOx 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 effective 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 generally 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 boilers 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 NOx 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 potential to exceed the 25-tonsper-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 NOx, 

emissions below 25 tons per year from 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 NOx

emission 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 (SCR). SCR is a post-combustion

control technology that reduces NOx reductions 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 NOx 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 applicable NOx emission 

 

65 Consistent with provisions in the 8-hour ozone implementation rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we 

interpret the 3- and 8-year timeframes to run from the effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards, that is, from June 15, 2004.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 NOx emission limits satisfy the 

requirement of paragraph (B) above.

Therefore, the District already complies with 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 NOx emissions 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 any 

gaseous fuel- or liquid fuel-fired boiler, steam generator, or process heater with a total rated heat 

input greater than 5 million Btu per hour. The requirements in the rule have now been 

superseded by those in Rule 4306.

Rule 4306 ―Boilers, Steam Generators, 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 per hour. The NOx 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 ―Alternative 

Control Techniques Document--NOx 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 Rule 4306; however, sources subject to Rule 4320 may opt to pay an annual fee in 

lieu of meeting these limits. Sources 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 SIP 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 NOx or any new or modified boilers 

that have the potential to emit 25 tpy of NOx 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, 2010).
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 May 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, 

SJVUAPCD, ―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 December 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 NOx. An uncontrolled 5.0 MMBtu gas- or liquid-fuel boiler would need to emit at a 

rate of 1.14 lbs of NOx per MMBtu burned to emit 25 tpy of NOx (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 NOx emissions rates for gas and liquid fuel boilers range from 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 on solid fuel at a 

source that has a potential to emit more than 10 tons per year of NOx 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 the 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 NOx emission limits in the revised rule effectively require operation of 

Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) control systems. We believe SNCR is ―comparably 

effective‖ to SCR for the affected sources as discussed below, and thus fulfills section 182(e)(3) 

requirements for these affected sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NOx emissions reductions 

comparable 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 emissions limits for coal-fired 

boilers ranging from 0.067 lbs/MMBtu (for large coal-fired boilers with SCR and low-NOx

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 NOx emissions of 0.22 lb/MMBtu. The 1994 ACT does not contain 

emissions levels for wood-fired FBC boilers with SCR but states that this type of unit with 

SNCR can achieve NOx 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 Action

on 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, generally SNCR controls are comparably effective to SCR 

for boilers firing wood (biomass), MSW, and many other types of solid fuels. 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 focused our 

review on circulating fluidized bed boilers of 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 NOx

emissions from boilers firing clean fuels such as natural gas, which may range from 0.07 to 0.45 

lb/MMBtu. 1994 ACT, Table 2.2. SNCR control systems consistently achieve up to 80 percent

NOx emissions reductions 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 NOx, we note as a practical matter that only 

existing boilers in SJV are likely to be constrained by the NOx 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 Source Review (NNSR) or PSD permit programs. 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 

NOx are subject to the District‘s new source permitting rule (Rule 2201 ―New and Modified 

Stationary Source Review‖). This rule requires new and modified source to install and operate 

best available control technology/lowest achievable emissions reductions technology. EPA 

approved Rule 2201 into the SIP at 75 FR 26102 (May 11, 2010). 

Based on our review of the emission limitations in SJVUAPCD‘s rules and the applicable 

compliance deadlines, we find that the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP meets the requirements 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 requirements of CAA 

section 182(e)(3) at 76 FR 57846, 57864. We received no comments on this proposed finding.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 113

J. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements 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 attain by its attainment date. These contingency 

measures must be fully adopted rules or measures which are ready for implementation quickly 

upon failure to meet milestones or attainment. The SIP should contain trigger mechanisms for 

the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and 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 

attainment 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 states should adopt and submit 

contingency measures sufficient to provide a 3 percent emissions reduction from the adjusted 

RFP base year. EPA concludes this level of 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 RFP requirement. 

States may use reductions in either of VOC and NOx to meet the contingency measure 

requirement. General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. States may also use a combination of VOC 

and NOx reductions.

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 requirements. This is because the purpose of contingency 

measures is to provide extra reductions that are not relied on for RFP 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 62 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 71612, 71651.

Furthermore, states can also use federal measures that result in additional emissions

reductions beyond those needed for attainment or RFP as contingency measures. EPA has 

approved the use of federal 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 114

hour ozone SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997), 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), 66 FR 

30811 (June 8, 2001), 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 

later date, contingency measures for failure to attain under CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to 

the contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies approved under 

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 contingency measure provision is described in Section 11.6. of the 2007 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, the SIP relies on surplus 

NOx reductions in the RFP demonstration. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, Attachment A, p. A3. 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 

additional incremental emissions reductions resulting from fleet turnover in the 2024. For SJV, 

these values are 2 tpd NOx and less than 0.5 tpd VOC. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions 

Supplement, 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 addition to 

contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures approved 

pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. See CARB Resolution No. 11-

22 (July 21, 2011). 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 Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, November 18, 2011.

3. Evaluation and Conclusions

Contingency measures for failure to make RFP - As discussed above in section II.G., we are 

approving the RFP demonstration. As seen in Table J-1, there are sufficient excess reductions of 

NOx 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 115

Contingency measures for failure to attain – The incremental additional emissions 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, these reductions are 2 tpd of NOx and less than 0.5 

tpd of VOC. 

Based on our determination 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

Ozone 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) do not achieve planned reductions.68CARB Resolution 

No. 11-22 (July 21, 2011) and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 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 commitment 

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 meeting 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 appropriate level of emissions 

reduction progress continues to be made if attainment is not achieved and additional planning by the State is needed. 

See General Preamble at 13524.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 116

TABLE J-1

Excess NOx Reductions in RFP 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 2023

NOx adjusted base year 565.2 565.2 565.2 565.2 565.2

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 Action

on 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 federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

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

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

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

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

interim milestone.

Actions that involve Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to EPA‘s transportation conformity rule, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

specific pollutants or precursors. Ozone attainment and RFP plans should establish budgets for 

NOx and VOC. See 40 CFR § 93.102(b)(2)(i).

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

budgets are adequate or approve the budgets. Submitted budgets that have not been found to be 

adequate or approved may not be used in conformity determinations. In order for us to find the 

budgets adequate and approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy 

requirements of 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP 

requirements. To meet these requirements, the budgets must reflect all of the motor vehicle 

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

93.118(e)(4)(v).

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the SJV 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP

The SJV Ozone SIP as submitted in 2007 included budgets for VOC and NOx for the 

attainment year of 2023 and the RFP years of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. See 2007 

Ozone Plan, Section 9.2.3 and Appendix C and CARB Staff Report, Appendix D (updating 

MVEB for Madera and San Joaquin Counties).

CARB 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 NOx and VOC for the RFP years of 2011, 2014, 2017 and 

2020 and the attainment year of 2023. No budgets were included for the RFP year of 2008 

because it is no longer applicable as a conformity analysis year. CARB provided additional 

information in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions supplement and in emails from Douglas Ito, 

CARB, to Elizabeth Adams, EPA, on August 9 and 11, 2011. Table K-2 below shows how the 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 

inventories in the Appendix C of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan as submitted in November 2007. 

They 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 resulting total rounded to the next highest tenth of a ton. 

Existing measures are:

AB 1493 Green House Gas Standards (NOx and VOC)

On-Road Portion of the Carl Moyer Program (NOx and VOC)

SJVUAPCD‘s Rule 9310 – School Buses (NOx only)

New measures are:

SJVUAPCD Rule 9410 Employer Based Trip Reduction (NOx and VOC)

Smog Check Improvements (Low pressure evap, cutpoints, light and medium 

duty diesels, smoke test) (NOx and VOC)

Reformulated Gasoline (VOC only)

Heavy Duty Diesel Truck Model (NOx and VOC)

New HDDT inventory

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 found the budgets in the 2007 Ozone

Plan for the RFP milestone years 2011, 2014, and 2017 adequate and the MVEBs for the RFP 

milestone years 2008 and 2020 and the attainment year of 2023 inadequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. See letter Deborah Jordan, EPA Region 9, to James Goldstene, CARB, 

―RE: Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and 

Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets,‖ January 8, 2009. We published a notice of 

our findings at 74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009). This adequacy finding is also available at EPA‘s 

transportation conformity website, www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm.

We found the budgets for 2011, 2014 and 2017 adequate for transportation conformity 

decisions because they were consistent with the State‘s RFP demonstrations 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 meet the other adequacy criteria in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). These budgets are currently being used by the MPOs and DOT in 
TSD for the Final Action

on 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, these 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 did not show RFP for the year 2008 and thus the budget did not 

meet the transportation conformity rule‘s adequacy criteria that the budgets 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 because they included estimated 

emissions reductions associated with a number of commitments for future rule adoption that lack 

specificity. As such, the SJV MPOs would not have been able to accurately quantify future 

emissions reductions associated with the commitments. Therefore, the 2020 and 2023 budgets 

were not precisely quantified or related to the overall emissions 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 Revised 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 posted the 

revised budgets on EPA‘s adequacy review web page on September 19, 2011 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, we have completed our detailed review of the 2007 SJV 8-hour Ozone 

SIP and supplemental submittals including the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions and are approving 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

approving the 2011, 2014, 2017, 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 transportation conformity determinations. For 

these conformity determinations, the 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 

included CARB‘s upcoming revision to the EMFAC model, EMFAC2011) the MPOs will need 

to show the off-model emissions reductions 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 SIPs and transportation conformity determinations. 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 120

Public Comments Received on the Proposed Approval of the MVEB

CARB has requested that we limit the duration 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.

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 acknowledgement 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 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 the 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 PM2.5 Plan. These budgets were also submitted on July 29, 2011 as an appendix to the 2001 Ozone SIP 

Revisions.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

Fresno 14.3 36.2 10.7 30.0 9.3 22.6 8.3 17.7 8.0 13.5

Kern (SJV) 12.7 50.3 9.7 42.7 8.7 31.7 8.2 25.1 7.9 18.6

Kings 2.8 10.7 2.1 8.9 1.8 6.7 1.7 5.3 1.6 4.0

Madera 3.4 9.3 2.5 7.7 2.2 5.8 2.0 4.7 1.9 3.6

Merced 5.1 19.9 3.7 16.7 3.2 12.4 2.9 9.9 2.8 7.4

San Joaquin 11.1 24.6 8.4 20.5 7.2 15.6 6.4 12.4 6.3 10.0

Stanislaus 8.5 16.9 6.4 13.9 5.6 10.6 5.0 8.4 4.7 6.4

Tulare 8.8 16.0 6.7 13.2 5.8 10.1 5.3 8.1 4.9 6.2
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

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

Kern 

(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 18.6
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

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 3.6
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page 124

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 NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

Merced

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 10.0
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx ROG NOx

Stanislaus

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 6.2
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 designee. 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. The 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, 2007.

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 

designee. 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 held on July 

21 2011.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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, FHWA, FTA, 

CARB, Caltrans, SJVUAPCD, 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 draft 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 MVEB 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. The 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 information 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 because the 2008 budgets are 

no longer needed for any conformity determination in the SJV. 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, 

Appendix C.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 preliminarily concluded that the revised budgets for the years 2011, 2014, 2017, 

2020, and 2023 when considered together with all other emission sources and controls, are 

consistent with the requirement to demonstrate RFP for 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 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 this TSD, EPA is approving

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 standards. 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 

approving the revised 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 mobile 

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 in Table 

C.9 in Appendix C to the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan as well as in the 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions

Supplement, and additional technical information transmitted from CARB in their August 

10 letter and emails on August 9th and 11th.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 submittal of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the 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 emission 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, EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA for use in SIPs and 

conformity determinations on 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-hour ozone standard and do not constitute a 

revision to the MVEB previously submitted in the 2004 Ozone Plan because that Plan 

addressed different ozone standards.

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 Duty Truck Model and adjusted the reductions associated with smog check and SJV 

Rule 9310 to reflect updated VMT data from the SJV MPOs. Emissions reductions 

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 and 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 draft 

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 

but 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 Action

on 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 nonattainment areas, such as the San Joaquin 

Valley. We briefly describe these provisions and their current status below for informational

purposes only.

1. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs

CAA section 182(c)(3) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 as serious or above to implement an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program in those areas. The requirements for those programs are provided in 

section 182(c)(3) and 40 CFR § 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 covered 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 section 172(c)(5) and 173 for the construction 

and operation of each new or modified major stationary source (with respect to ozone) anywhere 

in the nonattainment area. See also CAA section 182(e). EPA‘s implementation regulations for 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) programs are in 40 CFR § 51.165, and guidance 

specific to ozone nonattainment areas is provided in the preamble to the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612 at 71671-71684.

EPA approved the SJVUAPCD‘s new source review rules, Rules 2201 ―New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review‖ and Rule 2020 ―Exemptions,‖ into the SJV portion of the 

California SIP 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 revisions 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 PM2.5 and major modifications at existing major PM2.5 sources. See 76 FR 

76112 (December 6, 2011).
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page 131

4. Clean-Fuel 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 section 

182(c)(4)(B) allows states to ―opt-out‖ of the clean-fuel vehicle fleet program by submitting a 

SIP revision consisting of a program or programs that will result in at least equivalent long term 

reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air emissions.

In 1994, CARB submitted a SIP revision to opt-out of the federal clean fuel fleet program 

This SIP revision demonstrated that is California‘s low-emissions vehicle program achieved 

emissions reductions at least as large as the federal program would. EPA approved the State‘s 

opt-out on August 27, 1999. See 64 FR 46849.

5. Gasoline Vapor Recovery

CAA section 182(b)(3) mandates that states submit a revised SIP by November 15, 1992 

that requires owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate gasoline 

vehicle refueling vapor recovery (―Stage II‖) systems in ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate and above. California‘s ozone nonattainment areas had implemented Stage II vapor 

recovery well before the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990. See General Preamble at 

13514.

Under California State law (Health and Safety Code Sections 41954), CARB is required 

to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes CARB, 

in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, to identify defective equipment, 

and to develop test methods. CARB has adopted numerous revisions to its vapor recovery 

program regulations. See Table A-7 in Appendix A to this TSD. See also CARB‘s website, 

http://www.evrhome.org/.

In the San Joaquin Valley, the installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor 

recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622, the latest 

versions of which were approved by into the SIP on October 30, 2009. See 74 FR 56120.

6. Enhanced Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

CAA Section 182(c)(1) requires that all ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious 

or above implement measures to enhance and improve monitoring for ambient concentrations of 

ozone, NOx, and VOC, and to improve monitoring of emissions of NOx and VOC. 

The SJVUAPCD‘s Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (June 30, 2011) 

describes the steps the State has taken to address the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1). The 

SJV‘s Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network consists of six sites 

operated by 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 Action

on 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, 

2011.

7. CAA Section 185 Fee Program

CAA section 185 requires that the SIP for each severe and extreme ozone nonattainment 

area provide that, if the area fails to attain by its applicable attainment date, each major stationary 

source of VOC and NOx located in the area shall pay a fee to the State as a penalty for such 

failure for each calendar year beginning after the attainment date, until the area is redesignated as 

an attainment area for ozone. States are not yet required to implement CAA section 185 fee 

programs for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards.

72

 

72

 SJVUAPCD submitted Rule 3170, ―Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee,‖ and a feeequivalent program to address the requirements of CAA section 185 for the 1-hour ozone standard. EPA 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 Comments
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 proposed 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, 2011, ―Comments on Proposed Approval of San 

Joaquin Valley Attainment Plan for 1997 Ozone Standard; Docket No. EPA-R09-

OAR-2011-0589)‖ with enclosures. These comments were joined by Tom Frantz, 

President, Association of Irritated Residents (AIR); Salvador Partida, Co- Chair, 

Committee for a Better Arvin; Maria Covarruvias, President, Comité 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 Association; 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 Resources 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 

emissions 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, citing Bayview Hunters Point Community 

Advocates v. Metropolitan Transp. Comm’n, 366 F.3d 692, 701 (9th Cir. 2004) and El Comite 

Para El Bienstar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam, 539 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th 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 global 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 and 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 reduction 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 to 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 135

their discretion, and citizens 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: Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), SIPs must include enforceable emissions

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 applicable 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 violation 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 (1st

Cir. 1996):

Courts 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 is limited to claims "for 

violations of specific 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 enforce 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 provision 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.

We describe CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments in the 2007 State Strategy (revised 

in 2009 and 2011) and the 2007 Ozone Plan in detail in our proposed 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 and provided additional information on the State and District's progress to date in achieving their 

total emissions reduction commitments. In this action, we are approving CARB's and the District's emissions

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 measures 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 136

defined new measures and an enforceable commitment 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, Attachment B at pp. 3 and 6 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21. For 

the SJV, CARB‘s emissions reductions commitments as submitted in 2007 and 2009 are to 

specific reductions of NOx 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 proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 57854) and Table D-6 of the TSD.

SJVUAPCD‘s commitments as submitted in 2007 are also to specific reductions of NOx

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 proposed rule (76 FR 57846, 578524) and Table D-2 of the TSD. The 

language used in the Board‘s resolution adopting the 2007 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 2007 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. (Emphasis added).

Thus, CARB‘s and the District‘s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures 

that will achieve specific amounts of NOx and VOC emissions reductions by specific years. 

These are not mere aspirational goals to ultimately achieve the standards. Rather, the State and 

District have committed to adopt enforceable measures that will achieve these specific amounts 

of emissions reductions by specified milestone years and ultimately by the attainment year 

(2023). See 70 FR 71612, 71633 (November 29, 2005) and 40 CFR § 51.910(a)(1) and § 

51.908(d) (requiring implementation of all control measures needed for expeditious attainment 

no later than the beginning of the year prior to the attainment date). All of these control measures 

are subject to State 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 

sections 113 and 304(a), respectively, should the State/District fail to adopt measures that 

achieve the requisite amounts of emissions reductions by each specified year. We conclude that 

these enforceable commitments to adopt and implement additional control measures to achieve 

aggregate emissions reductions on a fixed schedule are appropriate means, techniques, or 

schedules for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) of the Act.

AIR cites Bayview as support for their contention that the SIP‘s commitments are 

unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. That 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 identified 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 unenforceable 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 TCM 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 CARB‘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 within CARB‘s and the District‘s 

control. Furthermore, as stated previously, CARB and the District identify specific emissions

reductions that they will achieve, how they could be achieved and the time by which these 

reductions will be achieved. See 76 FR 57846, 57854 (Table 8) (listing CARB‘s commitments) 

57852 (Table 3) (listing the District‘s commitments). 

CARB‘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-hour 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 within 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, CARB 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 

unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency measures are not 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 138

provided. Thus we hold that the basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, 

should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, fully 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 Court 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 Environment 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 attaining NAAQS, is distinct from simply ordering that NAAQS be achieved).

As in the CBE cases, CARB and the District commit to propose or adopt measures, which 

are not specifically identified, to achieve a specific tonnage of emissions reductions by specific 

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 emissions reductions 

through adoption and implementation of unidentified measures is comparable 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 amounts of emissions

reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). CARB‘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. In El Comite, the 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 relied 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 baseline 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). CARB 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 distinguished 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 elements of the overall enforceable commitment to 

reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court‘s 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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, its utility in analyzing the CARB 

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, CARB and the District 

commits to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified amounts of emissions 

reductions by specified dates. As described above, a number of courts have found commitments 

substantially similar to CARB‘s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a).

B. Baseline Measures, Baseline Inventories, and Attainment Demonstration

Comment: AIR asserts 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 includes 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 measures 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 measures 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 SIP-approved measures, waiver measures, and those that have not received EPA approval.‖ 

Thus, AIR argues, ―a significant amount of emissions reductions claimed in the attainment 

demonstration are not SIP creditable, a finding that EPA must make before approving 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 otherwise 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 140

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for On-Road Heavy-Duty DieselFueled 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 assertions. We explained in our Proposal TSD (section 

II.A.3.) our reasons for concluding both that the 2002 base year inventory in the SIP is 

comprehensive, accurate, and current as required by CAA section 182(a)(1) and that the 

projected baseline inventories provide adequate bases and support for the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP.

74

Specifically, with respect to mobile source emissions, we 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 fact that such rules are not 

approved as part of the California SIP. In the Proposal TSD, we explained why we believe such 

credit is appropriate. See Proposal 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 

afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health 

of its citizens and the public welfare‖ (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977)). 

In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the 

underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to 

the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit 

in their SIPs without submitting the program as a SIP revision.

EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for 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 updated 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 MOVES.

75) The SJV 2007 8-

hour Ozone 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 inventory 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 141

―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 MOVES model. 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 nonroad 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 actions 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 stationary 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 baseline emissions projections for several source categories to account for, among 

other things, more recent economic forecasts and improved methodologies for estimating 

emissions from the heavy duty truck and construction source categories. See 2011 Ozone SIP 

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; see also ―Procedures for 

Preparing Emissions Projections,‖ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA450/4-91-019, 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 OFFROAD models used to project changes in future inventories, is available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.

77

 Information 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 State Strategy, Appendix F, p. 21.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 2007 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 (EMFAC2007) and the 

most recent motor vehicle activity data from each of the MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley; (2) 

improved methodologies for estimating emissions from specific source categories; and (3) 

CARB's non-road mobile source model (the OFFROAD model). See TSD, section 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 PM10 plan for South 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 part the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 plan for the South Coast Air Basin) and 76 FR 69928 (November 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 proposed 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 emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants‖ in the SJV area, consistent with the requirements for emissions inventories in CAA 

section 182(a)(1), 40 CFR § 51.915, and 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. In addition, we conclude 

that the projected 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 RFP 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 reductions attributed to baseline measures in the projected inventories. The total 

amounts of emissions reductions 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 NOx. 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 Industrial Equipment Rule (adopted May 26, 2006). Both 

of these mobile source measures are pending EPA waiver determinations under CAA section 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 2007 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 Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities (adopted December 8, 2005). CARB‘s 

staff report on this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this 

measures are 0.18 tpd NOx and 0.11 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.09 tpd NOx and 0.05 

tpd VOC 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 

of the statewide fleet (id.); therefore, the de minimis amounts of emissions reductions 

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 (adopted September 24, 2003). CARB‘s staff report on 

this measure indicates that the projected emissions reductions from this measure are 2.3 tpd 

NOx and 0.72 tpd VOC statewide in 2015 and 0.6 tpd NOx 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 minimis amounts of emissions reductions 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 was intended to ensure expeditious compliance with CARB‘s NOx emission 

standard for heavy-duty diesel (HDD) engines by requiring installation of ―Low-NOx

 

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 

pursuant 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 pursuant 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 

NOx in the SJV. See Memorandum, Doris Lo, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2); to San Joaquin Valley PM2.5

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, Executive Officer, CARB to Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA RE: 

Request for Authorization Determination Pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 209(e) for Amendments to California‘s 

Off-Road Emissions Standards Regulation for large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines 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 Action

on 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 Court, 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-NOx Software,80 removal of which 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, the NOx

emissions reductions attributed to ―reflashed‖ engines are enforceable 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). See Table 7 in the proposed 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). Reductions from the pesticide measure remain as part of 

the State‘s outstanding commitment. EPA expects to act on the pesticide element in 2012.81

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 proposed rule ―identifies the amount of total reductions attributed 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 

NOx 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 of 

 

80

 The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, ―Emission Inventory Output Tables‖ documents the adjustment in 

the baseline that CARB made to account for Chip Reflash (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 NOx emissions reductions statewide 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 

compliance 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 adjustment 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 PM2.5 Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0516, ―SIP Credit for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine 

Low-NOx Software (―Chip Reflash‖);‖ September 28, 2011.

81

 CARB submitted the pesticide regulations and additional commitments by the California Department of 

Pesticides to VOC emissions reductions 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 PM2.5 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 Action

on 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 reductions attributed to these 

baseline measures to take into account the updates to the projected emissions inventories 

provided in CARB‘s 2011 Ozone SIP revision. The emissions reductions 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 NOx.

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 submitted 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-road 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 NOx emissions from naturalgas fueled industrial equipment as well as other improvements to the stationary source 

inventories made by the District in the period between adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan and the 

initial draft of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. See Draft 2008 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix B, December 2007. 

Collectively, these revisions reduce the total estimated 2002 base year NOx and VOC inventories 

by approximately 12 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively. See 2011 Ozone SIP Revisions, p. B9. 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 2017-2018 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 

Revisions, 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 has not submitted copies of its mobile source baseline measures to EPA as part of this 

plan. AIR also asserts 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 Staff 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.). Although 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 146

of litigation in the 9th 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 California 

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 Proposal 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 allowing 

California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the underlying 

rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to the Federal 

motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit in their SIPs 

without submitting the program as a SIP revision. 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 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 

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 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 California‘s on-road waiver measures (i.e., absent a waiver, the FMVCP 

would apply in California). Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a 

partial backstop for corresponding California nonroad waiver measures. The constraints of the 

waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can relax the waiver measures for 

which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve an anti-backsliding function 

similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(l) and 193.

Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA mobile source standards 

diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs 

and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an effective backstop to the State 

program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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, we 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 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 enforce 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 quantifiability, EPA‘s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for motorvehicle-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 reductions from motor-vehiclerelated 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-established emissions 

standards. (Emissions reductions from EPA‘s motor vehicle standards are reflected in an 

analogous model known as MOVES.) 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 The SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone 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 

 

84

 EPA‘s historical practice in allowing California credit for waiver measures notwithstanding the absence 

of the underlying rules in the SIP is further documented by reference to EPA‘s review and approval of a May 1979 

revision to the California SIP entitled, ―Chapter 4, California Air Quality Control Strategies.‖ In our proposed 

approval of the 1979 revision (44 FR 60758, October 22, 1979), we describe the SIP revision as outlining 

California‘s overall control strategy, which the State had divided into vehicular sources and non-vehicular 

(stationary source) controls. As to the former, the SIP revision discusses vehicular control measures as including 

technical control measures and transportation control measures. The former refers to the types of measures we refer 

to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel content limitations, and a vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 

The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4–E, which refers to ―ARB vehicle emission 

controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 * * *,‖ including the types of vehicle 

emission standards we refer to herein as waiver measures; however, California did not submit the related portions of 

the California Administrative Code (CAC) to EPA as part of the 1979 SIP revision submittal. With respect to the 

CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: ―The following appendices are portions of the California Administrative Code. 

Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.‖ Thus, the State was clearly signaling its 

intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the underlying rules to EPA as 

part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 (September 28, 1980).
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 MOVES 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 the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA 

receives new waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public 

hearing and comment and then publishes a decision in the Federal Register following the public 

comment period. Once again, in substance, the process is similar to that for SIP approval and 

supports the argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for 

California standards, not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Second, just as SIP 

revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB‘s rules (for which a waiver 

has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are ―within 

the scope‖ of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. 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 treatment 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 (9th Circuit).

Comment: AIR argues that our reliance on the general savings clause in CAA section 193 for 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 rules, 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 regulations 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 

interpretation 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 longstanding 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 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 

health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP 

review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California with 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 149

the broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad 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 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 engine 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 relevant 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, then 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 emissions 

reductions 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 reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained 

through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall 

provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.‖ 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 Action

on 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) (Part 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 and 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 statutory goal of 

expediting attainment‖); see also preamble to PM2.5 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 techniques 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 all ―reasonably available 

control measures,‖87 including RACT 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 specific nonattainment area planning 

 

86

 EPA also believes it is not reasonable to require the adoption of measures that are absurd, unenforceable, 

or impracticable. See General Preamble at 13560; see also 55 FR 38326 (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 guidance issued in 1979. See 44 FR 20372 (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 demonstration 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 practicable; [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 Action

on 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 existing 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 reaffirmed 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 (April 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, 

additional 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 new or improved control 

techniques are, by definition, not reasonably available for current implementation 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, we 

believe Congress intended to allow for approval of both those reasonably available measures that 

contribute to expeditious attainment 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 Ozone SIP fails to provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards.

As explained in our proposed rule, the 2007 Ozone Plan includes an 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 reductions, 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, 

57853 (Table 5). We anticipate that these measures will accelerate introduction of the most 

stringent currently available new engine and retrofit 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-Hour Ozone 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, 4621, 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 2009 

State Strategy Status Report, p. 4. 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 152

NOx 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 

implication 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 controls 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 reductions 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 Revised 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 controls are economically feasible.‖ AIR also asserts that this 10-percentof-profits test ―has no connection to whether an industry is actually capable of bearing the costs 

of control, let alone whether the control should be considered cost-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 FR 18070, 18074 (April 28, 1992)) and states that EPA ―presumes that it is 

reasonable for similar sources to bear similar costs of emissions reductions‖ because 

―[e]conomic feasibility rests very little on the ability of a particular source to  ̳afford‘ to reduce 

emissions to the 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 feasible emissions reduction options‖ and notes that cost effectiveness 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 from 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 reasonable 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 feasibility 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 attainment (alone or in combination with other potential measures), and AIR has not identified any such 

measures.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 presumption 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, we disagree, with AIR‘s suggestion 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, 18074 (emphasis added). To the contrary, 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, annualized 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) (―NOx Supplement to General Preamble‖) 

(―comparability‖ of a NOx 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) (―PM10 Addendum to General Preamble‖) (―capital costs, annualized 

costs, 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-Effective Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOx) 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 reductions 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 absorption 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 PM2.5

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 feasibility 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, April 25, 2011. EPA did not rely on the 

economic feasibility guidance in the PM2.5 implementation rule preamble in its review of the SJV 2007 8-hour 

Ozone Plan.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 feasibility 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 

considers multiple factors in evaluating the economic feasibility of available control options

during its rule development processes, including capital costs, annualized costs, costeffectiveness, and compliance costs as a percentage of profits.96 Given EPA's long-standing 

position that states may justify rejection of a control measure as not ―reasonably 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 costs of potential control 

options to determine if they are economically 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 the 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 Implementation 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 criteria 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],‖ 

and 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 Proposed Amendments to Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),October 21, and for Rule 

4311 found 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 2009 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 socioeconomic impacts analysis required by California state law for certain rules. See California Health and Safety Code 

(CH&SC), section 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 the District‘s socio-economic and cost effectiveness evaluations, see 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 Action

on 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 Preamble 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 control 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 since the District‘s submittal of the 8-hour ozone plan in 2007, EPA has 

SIP-approved a number of rules that the District adopted despite cost estimates exceeding the 

―10 percent of profits‖ threshold for one or more industries 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 Polypropylene 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 is 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 review of some of the SJV rules adopted since 2007 give cost effectiveness values ranging from 

$1,500-$2,000 per ton of NOx (Rule 4308 – Boilers 0.75 to 2.0 MMBtu) to $12,600 to $51,800 per ton of NOx (Rule 

4702 – Internal Combustion Engines), and $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 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 

4702, August 18, 2011, p. 20; Final Staff Report for Amendments to Rule 4601, December 17, 2009, Appendix C, p. 

C-3; and Final Staff Report for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4607, December 18, 2008, Appendix C, p. C4. 

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, Revised 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 Control District; Final rule. 

Pre-publication version signed December 13, 2011.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 156

Strategy, p. 33 and EPA‘s TSD, section 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 for 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 

PM2.5 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 adopted rules shows that during the rule-development process, the District considers its 

control strategies and the emissions reductions needed for attainment that it has identified in its 

plans. For example, section I.A. (―Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation‖) in the 

Rule 4320 SJV Staff Report102 discusses both the deadline for adoption and the anticipated 

reductions from these new and revised rules in the 2007 Ozone Plan and states: ―[t]his 

rulemaking project is intended to satisfy the attainment goals of the District‘s 2007 Ozone plan,‖ 

―[t]he plan calls for a total of 1.1 tons per day of NOx reductions [from large and medium 

boilers]...,‖ and ―[t]he proposed amendments...will seek to obtain as much reduction of [NOx] 

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 analysis 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 additional 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) RACT) and identifies whether the rulemaking project is part of the 

area‘s ozone and/or PM2.5 control strategy and the reductions from the rule called for in the plan.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 sources104 but covered a 

wide variety of small stationary sources (e.g., gasoline stations, p. I-75), area sources105 (e.g., 

architectural coatings, p. I-100; asphalt roofing, p. I-56; and residential water heaters, p. I-28), 

indirect sources106 (e.g., employer trip reduction, p. I-141) and mobile sources (e.g., school 

buses, p. I-156). 

Most of the District‘s rules currently apply to sources 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 applies 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 District 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 

SIP108 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 control 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, 

advanced 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 stationary 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 individually 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 shopping 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 NOx and/or VOC) which apply only to units at major sources: Rule 4352 – Solid Fuel Boilers (NOx); Rule 

4354 – Glass Melting Furnaces (NOx and VOC); Rule 4311 – Flares (SOx, NOx, 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 (VOC).

108

 We assume here that AIR intended to refer to the SJV 2009 RACT SIP. 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 158

Open burning controls: Open burning in the SJV is regulated by 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 State 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 prohibitions 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 TSD109 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: NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces in the SJV are 

regulated by District Rule 4354. EPA has determined that the Rule‘s NOx 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 NOx control measures for glass melting 

furnaces that are reasonably available for implementation 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: NOx emissions from solid-fuel fired boilers in the SJV are regulated 

by District Rule 4352. In 2010, EPA disapproved all of the NOx 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-hour Ozone SIP, 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 TSD, section II.C.3. and 76 

FR 57856. In response to this comment, 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 they 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 satisfies RACT under 

CAA section 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 Air 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 Action

on 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, prepublication notice signed December 13, 2011).

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 Than 5.0 MMBtu/hr) requires large gas- or liquid-fueled boilers to comply with the 

Rule‘s NOx emissions limitations or pay a fee in lieu of compliance with the limits. Boilers 

subject to Rule 4320 are also subject to District Rule 4306, which EPA has determined 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 4308 – 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 action on the 2007 Ozone Plan, we evaluated whether additional controls on solidfueled 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 emissions 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 TSD, 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 to 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 Air 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 4320, Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters Greater than 

5.0 MMbtu/hr,‖ August 19, 2010. 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 

reductions in NOx 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 NOx reductions and 

no reasonable level of VOC reductions will expedite attainment absent significant NOx

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 NOx reductions are also achieved, we have focused our evaluation on the 

potential RACM that reduce NOx emissions. Specifically, we evaluated whether additional 

emissions reductions 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 prebaseline 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 without 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 NOx 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 sufficient 

emissions reductions in 2022.

As shown in Table III-1 below, even with additional controls on source categories for 

which we have not yet approved rules meeting RACT and measures recommended by the 

commenters, the 2023 NOx emissions level in the SJV would still be well above the level needed 

for attainment. We conclude, therefore, that the 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 

expeditious 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 161

TABLE 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 NOx 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 fuelfired boilers (including coal-fired 

boilers). 

Solid fuel-fired boilers are projected to emit 4.7 tpd of NOx 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 solidfuel 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 noncreditable measures (Rule 9510 and 

Rule 4702). 

Reductions from Rule 9510 are currently not creditable. See 76 

FR 26609 (May 9, 2011).1 Reductions 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, Staff Report on 

Rule 4702 (August 18, 2011)

- 2.5

E Remaining enforceable commitments. 

Calculated by subtracting from CARB‘s 2023 commitment of 

46 tpd NOx (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)

- 4.7
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 162

TABLE 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 NOx 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 2011

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 reductions.

0

I

Expansion of retrofit controls to nonmajor sourcesCommenter provided insufficient information for EPA to 

estimate potential emissions reductions.

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
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 163

TABLE 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 NOx 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 Action

on 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 prebaseline emissions reduction credits (ERC) for NOx and 36.1 tpd of pre-baseline ERCs for VOC

(citing the 2007 Ozone Plan, p. D-3). AIR asserts that these 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 allowing 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 further argues that EPA cannot claim that the Plan provides for expeditious 

attainment if it allows this unmitigated emissions growth and EPA‘s RACM analysis is undermined 

because these avoided emissions coupled with reasonably available controls could be adequate to 

advance attainment by more than a year. Finally, AIR argues that in order to comply with the 

RACM requirement of section 172(c)(1), EPA must evaluate what additional reductions would be 

needed if the combined impact of these VOC and NOx emissions were 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 these ERCs are explicitly included and 

quantified as growth in the future year inventories used to demonstrate RFP and/or attainment and 

are 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 approved 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 factor, but is in 

addition to anticipated general growth.

For the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District estimated the amount of ERCs (both pre- and post- the 

baseline year of 2002 in absolute tonnage) expected to be used over the duration of the Plan, 

conservatively assumed that all these ERCs 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 ERCs

do not exceed the anticipated growth estimates, the District capped the use of these ERCs both over 

the entire time period of the Plan 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 attainment, we do not agree with AIR‘s 

assertion that their use is ―unmitigated‖ and ―negates the offset benefits of the new source review 

program.‖ 

We also do not agree with the AIR‘s assertion that allowing this emissions growth is 

inconsistent 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 program. As a condition of 

 

112

 See General Preamble 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 at Time of Use,‖ August 26, 1994.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 

restrictions 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 allows this growth in emissions and that the RACM analysis is 

undermined because these ―avoided emissions 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 anticipated 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 alone 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 requirements 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 are using the CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology 

provision. 

First, AIR argues that it is arbitrary for EPA to approve a new technology provision of 80

tons per day of NOx reductions or 59 percent of the reductions needed for attainment given its lack 

of definition. 

Second, AIR asserts that section 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 to attain federal air quality standards.‖ 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 argues that ―[t]his example clearly fails to meet all the criteria 

required 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 not 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 asserts

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 asserts that the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP ―only attempts to 

comply with requirement number (5),‖ that the generalized discussion in the SIP provides little 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 capricious.

Response: First, we disagree with the commenters‘ contention that EPA‘s approval of the SIP is 

arbitrary because of the amount of emissions reductions 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 that are attributed to the new technologies provision is not correct.113 The correct 

percentage of the needed NOx emissions reductions attributed to the new technology provision in 

the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP is 12 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 demonstrates 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 commitments to submit adopted contingency measures meeting certain 

criteria no later than three years before 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 should 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 adopted 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 NOx and 116 tpd of VOC to attain the 1997 8-

hour ozone standards by June 15, 2024. See 76 FR 57846, 57859 (Table 10) (values rounded to the 

ones place). Of these needed reductions, approximately 88 percent of the NOx reductions and all of 

the VOC reductions are attributed to already adopted measures or commitments to adopt and 

implement existing technologies by 2014. See 76 FR 57846, 57859 (Table 10) 57851, and 57853 

(Tables 2 and 5) (identifying CARB and District measures recently adopted or scheduled for nearterm 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 nationwide. This leaves just 12 percent of the needed NOx reductions and none of 

the needed VOC reductions to be met through new technologies 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 

reductions 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 Action

on 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 ozone 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 from 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 technologies 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 NOx, 

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 District make the convincing showing described above.

Second, we disagree with AIR that CAA section 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 on 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 anticipate 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 local 

agencies to evaluate complex technical 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 strategies 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 current implementation in the SJV. Likewise, although 

AIR asserts 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 

identified any particular control measure that the State should be obligated to include in its plan for 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the SJV. CARB and the District have adopted all of 

the control measures for NOx and VOC that are ―reasonably available‖ 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 reductions by 

specific years. See 76 FR 57846, 57850-57854. These measures are not sufficient, however, to 

achieve the significant amounts of NOx 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 cost-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 to 
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 168

achieve specific amounts of NOx and VOC reductions by 2023 through the development of new or 

improved control technologies under CAA section 182(e)(5). The total tonnage commitment in the 

SJV is for 81 tpd NOx. See 76 FR 57846, 57854-57855 and 2009 State Strategy Status Report, p. 21. 

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 57846, 57855, 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 enforceable 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, 57855), the SJV 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP identifies numerous potential measures currently under consideration as part of the longterm strategy, and CARB has committed to submit a SIP revision by 2020 that will identify the 

additional strategies and implementing 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 describes California‘s climate change programs, clean car 

technologies, 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 loweremission alternatives and to reduce emissions caused by electricity and 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 its new technology measures, and to secure resources for continuing 

research and development of new technologies. See August 29, 2011 Goldstene letter; 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 longterm strategy must satisfy five ―requirements,‖ of which, commenters contend, the SJV 2007 8-hour 

Ozone SIP addresses only 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 technology provisions and credit them toward the attainment 

demonstration if the state 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 note 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 Preamble at 13524.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 for approval of such conceptual measures under CAA section 

182(e)(5). See 76 57846 57854-57855. The General Preamble at 13524 recommends that a SIP 

relying on new technology provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) identify all of the specific longterm 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, as discussed in our proposed rule and above, both the 2007 State Strategy and the 

2007 Ozone Plan provide lists 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 State 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.

Comment: 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 otherwise required for the area) that could be implemented 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 years 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 Action

on 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 standards. Neither the 

CAA‘s planning requirements related to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 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 CAA 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 

standards. 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 subsequently 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 

emissions reductions will not come from future technologies, and we do not believe it is reasonable 

to require the State to reduce the amount of emissions reductions 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

 The 2004 Ozone SIP is the ―Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan,‖ adopted by the SJVUAPCD on October 8, 

2004 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 NOx and 5 tpd of 

VOC emissions reductions from new technology measures (referred to as ―long-term measures‖ in 2004 Ozone SIP). 

See CARB, ―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 reductions commitments. Id. However, 

prior to EPA‘s action on the 2004 Ozone SIP, the District adopted and submitted rules that provided 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 the 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 NOx emissions reductions in 

the SJV by 2010; likewise, 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 Action

on 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) (discussing 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 both 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 discussed in our proposed approval, CARB has committed to achieve 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 the 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 milestones 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 to 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 in 

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 this 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 RFP 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 Action

on 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), AIR 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 despite this ―clear 

legislative 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: Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA requires that nonattainment areas classified as severe or 

extreme submit transportation control strategies and transportation 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 demonstrate 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, and attainment of the ozone standard) as 

separable and we have interpreted 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 section II.H.1. and 76 FR 57846, 57862. See also, Brief for the 

Respondents, Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. EPA, and Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-71383 & 09-71404, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals at pp. 47-61 ; see 

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 This interpretation is consistent with the language in 

EPA‘s General Preamble at 13522 (first column, 2nd full paragraph): ―If projected total motor 

vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one year are not higher than during the ozone season 

the year before, given the control 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 states to adopt transportation control measures and strategies whenever vehicle emissions 

are projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle miles traveled not increased, even 

when aggregate vehicle emissions are actually decreasing. EPA has filed a petition for rehearing on 

this issue. See Association of Irritated Residents, et al. v. EPA, Docket Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 

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

At the time of our September proposed 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 proposed 

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 Ozone SIP with respect to the first element (i.e., 

 

118

 See 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 Agency – Region 9, December 11, 2009.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 section 182(d)(1)(A) based on the plan‘s failure to include sufficient transportation 

control strategies and TCM to offset the emissions from growth in VMT. 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 has 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 must 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 necessary, 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 demonstrate attainment.‖

We have determined that the SJV 2007 8-hour Ozone SIP meets the RFP 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 182(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; see also, TSD, section III.A.2. (responding to comments on the 

approvability of the baseline emissions 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 section 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 Action

on 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 

proposed action related to District Rule 4570, Confined Animal Facilities (CAF) was to approve a 

specific emissions reductions credit for the rule. See TSD, Table D-5. In a separate proposed rule

published on September 14, 2011 (76 FR 56706), we proposed to approve revised Rule 4570119 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 proposed 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 menus 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 that 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 

already following the guidelines. AIR also claims there is no evidence that feeding cows according 

to NRC guidelines 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 operators 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 cows 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 District 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 believes and we concur that Rule 4570 will significantly 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 2079 (January 14, 2010).

120

 Letter, Brent 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 Implementation 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 Action

on 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 agricultural sources of PM10. The commenter 

claimed that the emissions reductions estimated to be achieved by Rule 4550 were inaccurate and 

inflated because the estimate double-counted emissions reductions already being achieved from 

practices already in common use by growers. 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 for in the emission inventory. Rule 

4550 makes these practices mandatory and federally enforceable, allowing the District to take credit 

for the emissions reductions....‖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 seen 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 

implementation 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 District‘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 4570 ―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 scientific 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, Atmospheric 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 Action

on 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 reductions. The District 

explained, for example, its conservative approach in estimating emissions reductions for many of 

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 specifically 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 studies 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 State court litigation on Rule 4570, and the court ruled in favor of the 

District.129 The District‘s emissions reductions 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 reasonable 

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 research 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 public, fails 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 compliance with the rule.130 We provide further elaboration 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 what by 

when. EPA notes that it did evaluate the enforceability of Rule 4570 according to the criteria in the 

policy documents identified in our proposed rule, in particular, ―Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,‖ EPA, May 24, 1988 (the Bluebook), ―Guidance 

Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies,‖ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

 

127 Id.

128

 Letter, Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & 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

 Association of Irritated Residents v. SJVUAPCD (2008) 168 Cal. App. 4th 535, 553-554. 

130

 Air Division, 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 Action

on 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 Implementation 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 monitoring and therefore meets the general criteria 

for enforceability 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 enforceability 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 language 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, the 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 imposing 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 cover 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 specify 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 that it revise three Phase II menus for dairies 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 embedded 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 facilities, 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 enforcementrelated provisions. 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 the facility. Section 5.1.6 

requires the District to act on complete applications within 6 months of receipt and to list the 

 

131 Letter from Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rules Office, EPA Region 9 to George Heinen, SJVUAPCD, July 20, 

2010.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 large CAFs will be subject to a 30-day public comment period. 

In addition, sections 7.0-7.9 contain various recordkeeping requirements, including: section 

7.2.1, which requires owners and operators to maintain copies of all facility permits; section 7.2.2, 

which 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 compliance with all applicable 

mitigation measures.‖ In addition, sections 7.3-7.8 contain specific recordkeeping requirements for 

various mitigation measures132 and section 7.9 requires CAF owners and operators to maintain 

records for a minimum of 5 years. In 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 operators 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 means 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 

government, 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 exemption 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 trade 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 inconsistent 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 requested by the commenter. Rule 4570, by requiring records be 

 

132

 For example, section 7.3, ―Records for Feed and Silage Mitigation Measures,‖ and section 7.5, ―Records 

for Freestall/Corral/Animal Housing‖ set forth detailed recordkeeping 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 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (40 CFR § 2.201-2.215).

136 40 CFR § 2.301(e).
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on 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 

conflicts 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 monitoring 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 TMR 

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 has 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 feedlane. 

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 every 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 implementation 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 

permits will identify the parameters approved 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 that 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 guidelines identified in 

our proposed 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 ―false material statement‖ or ―omits material 

information from ... any ... application, record, report, plan or other document‖ required by the Act 

may be subject to criminal fines or by imprisonment or both. This provision will apply to records 

required by Rule 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 Action

on 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 PM2.5 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 Decisions.‖

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 acknowledgement 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 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 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

 CARB‘s letter also requested that we limit the duration of our approval of the MVEB approved with the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. These budgets were also submitted on July 29, 2011 as an appendix to the 2001 Ozone SIP Revisions.
Draft RTC for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page 181

Appendix A – State Measures
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 and 

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 NOx in the SJV (e.g., 

asbestos air toxic control measure), or otherwise do not affect emissions in the SJV (e.g., test 

methods).

APPENDIX TABLE A-1

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500-

94506 11/09/89 Consumer products

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not applicable

Emission Control System Warranty. T 13, CCR, 

2035-2041, 1977 12/14/89 On-road

Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 

94003 17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 

94139, 94140

01/11/90 Not applicable

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 

27156 & 38391 02/08/90 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not applicable

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate.

T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, 

CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not applicable

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide 

from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90 Not applicable

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802-90803 05/10/90 Not applicable

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-

93347

06/14/90 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-2

APPENDIX TABLE 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

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not applicable

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not applicable

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 On-road

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600-70601 08/09/90 Not applicable

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-

90704, 93300-93347

09/13/90 Not applicable

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase 

I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 Fuels

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 

and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061.

09/28/90 On-road

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable

Phase I - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507-

94517 10/11/90 Consumer products

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90 On-road

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 

60200-60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et. 

seq.

12/13/90 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-3

APPENDIX TABLE 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 SO2. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 

1977 11/12/91 On-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising

reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and 

adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission 

vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1

11/14/91 On-road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, 

CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel.

T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 

2292.3, 2292.5, 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 

1956.8(b), 1956.8(d)

12/12/91 Fuels
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-4

APPENDIX TABLE 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 Emission of 

Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 

17, & 26, CCR, 93107

12/10/92 Not applicable

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 

60200-60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not applicable

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty 

Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 

2180-2187, 1956.8(b)

12/10/92 On-road

Certification Requirements for Low Emission 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty 

Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900

01/14/93 On-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-5

APPENDIX TABLE 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 Fuels
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-6

APPENDIX TABLE 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 products
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-7

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission 

Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and 

incorporating test procedures

01/25/96 Off-road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 

13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave 

Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 

60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311

05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 

93301-93355, Appendix A-E (emissions inventory) 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel 

additives). T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Fuels

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 

17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not applicable

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not applicable

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 

94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not applicable

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & 

Off-Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Off-road

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods . T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-8

APPENDIX TABLE 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 Emissions Reduction Credits. T 17, 

CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not applicable

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission 

Requirements for Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle 

Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate 

test procedures

05/22/97 On-road

Consumer Products (Mid-Term Measures) 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94513 07/24/97 Consumer products

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and 

incorporate test procedures

07/24/97 On-road

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A 11/13/97 Not applicable

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201 & 60205 11/13/97 Not applicable

Consumer Products (Hairspray Credit Program). T 

17, CCR, 94502, 94509, 94522, & 94548 11/13/97 Consumer products

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2188 and 2190-2194

12/11/97 On-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T 17,CCR 90800. 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400,2410-2414 03/26/98 Off-road

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090-

60095 04/23/98 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-9

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 2262.5, 

2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265

08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR,

94010-94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 

94159, 94160, 94162

08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 

13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300-

70306, 70303.1

10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations.

T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Off-road

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 

- 94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 

94137 and revision of Method 12.

10/22/98 Not applicable

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-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-10

APPENDIX TABLE 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 2262.5(b) and 

2265(a)(2)

12/11/98 Fuels

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a 

Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump 

Labeling for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273

06/24/99 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test 

procedures, CP-201, TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6

06/24/99 Vapor Recovery

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On-road

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2478 09/23/99 Off-road

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR,

60040 and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable

California Consumer Products Regulation MidTerm Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 

94513

10/28/99 Consumer products

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 

2261, 2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 

2266 etc

12/09/99 Fuels

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 

2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & 

appendix A to article 2.1.

01/27/00 Off-road

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00 On-road

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 

80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 80120, 

80130, 80140, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 

80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 

80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 

80330

03/23/00 Not applicable
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-11

APPENDIX TABLE 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 Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 

2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 

2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures

11/16/00 Fuels

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Fuels

Heavy Duty Diesel Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" 

Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On-road

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust 

Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T

13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961

12/07/00 On-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated 

Test Procedure

01/25/01 On-road

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 

70600 04/26/01 Not applicable

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and 

Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging 

Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 On-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-12

APPENDIX TABLE 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 incorporate test 

procedures and guidelines

11/15/01 On-road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule.

T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 

2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607-2610

02/21/02 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On-road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty 

and In-Use Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

2700-2710 

05/16/02 On-road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, 

CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1

06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 

2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296

07/25/02 Fuels
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-13

APPENDIX TABLE 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. T13, CCR, 

2480

12/12/02 On-road

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase 

Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 

2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5

12/12/02 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures.

T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 

94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, 

and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference.

12/12/02 Vapor Recovery

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas 

Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor 

administrative changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 

1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents 

incorporated by reference

12/12/02 On-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T

13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, 

and documents incorporated by reference

03/25/03 On-road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03 Off-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 

90801, 90802, and 90803

07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 

& T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 

93114, and incorporated test procedure

07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 

2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On-road

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400-2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 

2754.1, 2754.2, 2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and 

the documents incorporated by reference

09/25/03 Off-road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 & 2477

12/11/03 On-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-14

APPENDIX TABLE 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 incorporate by reference

12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty 

and In-Use Compliance Requirements 

(Amendments). T 13, CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 

12/11/03 On-road

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations 

for State PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210

01/22/04 Not applicable

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-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-15

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 

2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California 

Procedures‖), and 2266.5 

11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & 

Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 

2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117

11/18/04 Fuels

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification 

procedure

11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 

90803

11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of 

Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent 

Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 

17, CCR, 93102.5

12/09/04 Not applicable

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 

60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 

2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 

1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4

02/24/05 On-road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115

05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, 

CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for 

2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty 

Engines (HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1

07/21/05 On-road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus 

Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 

13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8

09/15/05 On-road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 

2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 

2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Off road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-16

APPENDIX TABLE 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 OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned 

or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 and 2022.1

12/08/05 On-road

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off-road

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 

2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189

01/26/06 On-road

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use.

T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 

2709.

03/23/06 On-road

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 

1961,1976 and 1978.

05/25/06 On-road

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large 

Off-Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, 

CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 

2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 

2788, and 2789.

05/26/06 Off-road

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule.

T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 

94011 and incorporated certification 

06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 

2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 

and 2465

06/22/06 Off-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-17

APPENDIX TABLE 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. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On-road

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Emissions Inventory

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and 

document incorporated by reference

11/16/06 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

and Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration 

(amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119

11/16/06 Off-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, 

Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR,

93115.1-93115.15.t.

11/16/06 Other

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 

60210 

11/16/06 Not applicable

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 

94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Consumer products

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment 

Registration Program, Airborne Toxic Control 

Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 

CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3

12/06/06 Off-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome 

Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 

17, CCR, 93102.1-93102.16

12/07/06 Not applicable

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D

12/07/06 On-road
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-18

B. State Rules that Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley

A substantial number of the measures adopted by CARB since 1990 do not affect VOC 

or NOx emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. These types of measures include fee rules, 

identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and controls for pollutants 

other than VOC or NOx. Appendix Table A-2 provides a list of these measures.

APPENDIX TABLE A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx in the San Joaquin Valley

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emissions reduction measure

Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 

94003 17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 

94139, 94140

01/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate.

T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in 

Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not a 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

Emissions Reduction Accounting Procedures for 

California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

70600-70601 08/09/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-

90704, 93300-93347

09/13/90 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-19

APPENDIX TABLE A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx 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 -Vehicular Sources.

T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Non -Vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94131, 

94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure.

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 

90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure.Obsolete.

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 

80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel 

Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 

26, 93000

08/08/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR, 

90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-20

APPENDIX TABLE A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx 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 NOx 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 measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-21

APPENDIX TABLE A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx 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 monoxide 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 inventory) 05/30/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 

17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 

94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air 

Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Interchangeable Emissions Reduction Credits. T 17, 

CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 

90701-90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700-90705 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations '97. T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 & 

60205 11/13/97 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources.

T 17,CCR 90800 01/29/98 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-22

APPENDIX TABLE A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx 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 emissions reduction measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 

- 94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124, 

94137 and revision of Method 12.

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR,

60040 and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and 

State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300-

70306, 70303.1

10/22/98 Not an emissions reduction measure

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 NOx emissions reduction measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 

95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, 

CCR, 80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not a SJV control measure(Sacramento Valley air basin only)

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emissions reduction measure

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 

70600 04/26/01 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics ―Hot Spots‖ Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 

90700-90705 10/25/01 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-23

APPENDIX TABLE A-2

Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address VOC or NOx 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 PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210

01/22/04 Not an emissions reduction measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and 

90803

11/18/04 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 

60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 

17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, 

CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emissions reduction measure

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emissions reduction measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emissions Inventory 

Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and 

document incorporated by reference

11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, & 

60210 

11/16/06 Not an emissions reduction measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-24

C. State Fuel Measures

CARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean 

diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel 

standards for off-road sources. Appendix Table A-3 is a list of these revisions. 

APPENDIX TABLE A-3

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Renumbered to section 2281.Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Limit on Aromatic Content of Diesel Fuel. T 13, 

CCR, 2256 12/13/90

Renumbered to section 2282.

Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

(listed as 4/15/01 adoption in FR)

Diesel Fuel Regulations - Emergency. T 13, CCR, 

2281(h), 2282(1) 10/15/93 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 

1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 

& T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 

93114, and incorporated test procedure

07/24/03 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of 

Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. Expired

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harbor Craft & 

Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 

2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117

11/18/04 NOx reductions estimated at 0.1 tpd

for SJV. See CARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase 

I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between 1992 and 1996. Obsolete.

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, 

CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95)

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 

2261, 2262-2270 06/09/94 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95

Section 2251.5 - obsolete; section 

2258 wintertime; section 2263, 

superseded

Wintertime Oxygenate Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2251.5, 2263(b), 2267, 2298, 2259, 2283, 2293.5 09/09/93 Carbon monoxide control measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-25

APPENDIX TABLE A-3

Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 

rules

Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control 

Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates 

testing procedures.

11/16/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 

rules

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 

2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 

(Emergency) 01/25/96 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Regulation Improvements and Repeals (fuel 

additives). T 13, CCR, 2201, 2202 05/30/96 Repealed sections

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, 

CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 

2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265

08/27/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 

rules

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 

13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 

2265(a)(2)

12/11/98

Wintertime gasoline for South Coast 

and Imperial County. Not applicable 

to the SJV area.

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling 

for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273

06/24/99 Not applicable to the SJV/SC

area/Obsolete

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, 

standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 

2261, 2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265, 

2266 etc.

12/09/99

2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 

(designation of alternative limits) 

not approved; otherwise superseded 

by 11/18/04 and 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 

2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 

2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 

2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures

11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 

rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 

2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296

07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 

rules
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-26

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 

2263, 2265 (and the incorporated ―California 

Procedures‖), and 2266.5 

11/18/04 Approved 75 FR 26653 (5/12/10)

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, 

CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only. Obsolete.

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a 

Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emissions reductions

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit 

Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired
TSD for the Final Action

on 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 CARB since 1990 for on-road 

and off-road sources.

APPENDIX TABLE A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Procedure for Aftermarket Parts. VC 

27156 & 38391 02/08/90 Compliance provisions

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112, 2139 06/14/90 Waiver granted September 16, 1994(59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted August 25, 1994 (59 

FR 46979 (9/13/94))

Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels. T 13, CCR, 

1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 and 

2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061.

09/28/90

Waivers granted January 7, 1993 & 

April 6, 1998 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 

63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and Light 

& Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977, 

1968.1

09/12/91

Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 

FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 

1977 11/12/91

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising

reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and 

adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission 

vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1

11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 18, 1993

Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel Certification Fuel 

Specification. T 13 & 26, CCR, 2290-2292.7, 

1960.1(k), 1956.8(b), 1956.8(d)

3/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 17, 1994

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel 

Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisions

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test 

Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 11/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested February 17, 1994

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel 

& Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-

2187, 1956.8(b)

12/10/92
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-28

APPENDIX TABLE A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Certification Requirements for Low Emission 

Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks & Medium Duty 

Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1976, 2061, 1900

01/14/93 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested February 21, 1994

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 

FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope September 28, 

2004 (69 FR 59920 (October 6, 2004))

Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures.

T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted July 28, 1999 (64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 

1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Confirm within the scope finding requested September 14, 1995

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 

1956.8(b)

11/09/94

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, & 

Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted October 2, 1996 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2190 12/08/94

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 

13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope September 28, 2004 (69 FR 59920 (10/6/04))

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 13, 

CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test procedures 06/29/95 Waiver granted August 13, 2002 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 

2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 Compliance provision

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, 

CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and 

incorporate test procedures

09/28/95 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested October 8, 1996.

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope January 18, 2001 (66 FR 7751 (1/25/01))

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested November 24, 1997

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (February 5, 2004)
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-29

APPENDIX TABLE A-4

On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Postpone Enhanced Evaporative Emission 

Requirements for Ultra-Small Volume Vehicle 

Manufacturers. T 13, CCR, 1976 and incorporate test 

procedures

05/22/97 Found within the scope July 28, 1999

(64 FR 42689 (8/5/99))

Off-Cycle Emissions Supplemental Federal Test 

Procedures (SFTPs). T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 2101 and 

incorporate test procedures

07/24/97 Waiver granted September 30, 2004 

(69 FR 60996 (10/14/04))

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2188 and 2190-2194

12/11/97

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 

13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test 

procedures

04/23/98 Confirm within the scope finding 

requested December 26, 2001

Low Emission Vehicles Standards (LEV 2) and 

Compliance Assurance Program (CAP 2000). T 13, 

CCR,1961 & 1962 (both new); 1900, 1960.1, 1965,

1968.1, 1976, 1978, 2037, 2038, 2062, 2101, 2106, 

2107, 2110, 2112, 2114, 2119, 2130, 2137-2140, 

2143-2148

11/05/98

Waiver granted April 11, 2003 (68 FR 

19811 (4/22/03))/found within the 

scope (1999 ZEV amendments)

December 21, 2006 (71 FR 78190 

(12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, 

CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted July 27, 2006 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program.

Revised 2/21/06 and 12/7/06

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99

Removal of obsolete provisions, 

streamlining and other minor changes 

to 9/1990 rule.

Transit Bus Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 

1956.3, 1956.4, 1956.8, 1965 02/24/00

Combination of fleet requirements, 

emission standards, and zero-emission 

bus standards. Fleet requirements 

achieve approximately 2 tpd NOx

reductions statewide, so minimal effect 

in SJV. Federal & state emission 

standards are the same for 2010 MY 

buses.

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust Emission 

Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. T 13, CCR, 

1956.8 &1961

12/07/00

Waiver granted for LDV & HDV April 

11, 2003 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))

Initial notice on within-the-scope 

finding request for HDGE: 72 FR 

27114 (May 14, 2007).
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-30

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 

1960.1,1960.5, 1961, 1962 and incorporate test 

procedures and guidelines

11/15/01 Found within the scope April 21, 2005

(70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement 

Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & 

appendices C & D, and 2607-2610

02/21/02

Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program.

Revised 12/7/06.

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, 

CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Initial notice 69 FR 5542 (2/5/04)

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and 

In-Use Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2700-

2710 

05/16/02 Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology. 

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. T

13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & 

documents incorporated by reference

10/24/02 Slight relaxation in requirements over 

2000 rule.

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas 

Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor 

administrative changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 

1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents 

incorporated by reference

12/12/02

Waiver granted August 19, 2005 (70 

FR 50322 (8/26/05)) for all but HDGE.

HDGE standards adopted to harmonize 

with EPA‘s. Initial notice on withinthe-scope finding request for HDGE: 

72 FR 27114 (5/14/07).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate 

from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emissions reductions claimed.

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 13, 

CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and 

documents incorporated by reference

03/25/03 Found within the scope December 21, 

2005 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-31

APPENDIX TABLE 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 confirm 

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 notice 

75 FR 43975 (7/27/2010)
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-32

APPENDIX TABLE 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 OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned or 

Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 

2022 and 2022.1

12/08/05

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 2183, 

2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189

01/26/06 Requires trucks have emission control 

labels.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. T 

13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06

Procedures to verify diesel retrofit 

technology, supporting rule for in-use 

control measures.

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 

1961,1976 and 1978.

05/25/06 Within the scope finding July 22, 2010 

(75 FR 44948 (July 27, 2010)).

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 

13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 Compliance provision. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 86.1808.01

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 

2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 Confirm within the scope finding requested.

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by 

reference

09/28/06

Compliance provision. Compliance 

program "essentially identical to 

EPA's." See Updated Information 

Digest for the Rule.

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06

Delays ZEB requirements due to high 

bus costs and unproven durability, 

reliability and ability to produce the 

number of buses required by the 

regulation. See Updated Information 

Digest.

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, 

CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D

12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary 

accelerated retirement program.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-33

APPENDIX TABLE A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and 

Garden Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90

Waiver granted July 5, 1995 (60 FR 

37440 (7/20/95)) 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

Within the scope finding November 

9, 2000 (65 FR 69767 (11/20/00)), 

waiver granted (durability 

requirements), November 10, 2003 

(65 FR 65702 (11/21/03)).

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 

2400-2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 

2754.1, 2754.2, 2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and 

the documents incorporated by reference

09/25/03 Waiver granted, December 11, 2006

(71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

2410-2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted December 23, 1996(61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & 

Off-Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 2415 12/10/98 Within the scope finding request March 4, 2000

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR, 2415 07/24/03

Addition to March 4, 2000 request 

November 19, 2004. Made changes 

to riding season restrictions.

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T

13, CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents 

incorporated by reference

07/20/06 Adopted evaporative emission 

standards identical to EPA's.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR, 

2420-2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted May 15, 1995 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995))

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, 

CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Within the scope finding November 9, 2000 (65 FR 69763 (11/20/00))

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2111, 2112, 2137, 2139, 2140, 2141, 2144, 

2400, 2401, 2403, 2420, 2421, 2423-2427, & 

appendix A to article 2.1.

01/27/00 Waiver granted, February 5, 2010 

(75 FR 8056 (2/23/2010)
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-34

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 2006 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large 

Off-Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, 

CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 

2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 

2788, and 2789.

05/26/06

Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007; 

adopts more stringent standards for 

2010. 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 

7/26/2001 marine inboard engine 

standards. Waiver requested

February 7, 2008. 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450-2465 03/27/97

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98

Modifications to the Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, 

CCR Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 

2466

02/26/04

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 17, CCR,93116, 93116.1, 

93116.2, 93116.3, 93116.4, and 93116.5

02/26/04 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested March 28, 2005.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 

2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 

and 2465

06/22/06 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-35

APPENDIX TABLE A-5

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emergency Regulation for Portable Equipment 

Registration Program Airborne Toxic Control 

Measures and Portable and Stationary diesel-Fueled 

Engines. T 13, CCR, 2452, 2455, 2456, 2461; T17 

CCR 93115, 93116.2, 93116.3

12/06/06 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.

Portable Equipment Registration Program and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel-Fueled 

Portable Engines. T 13, CCR, 2451, 2452, 2456, 

2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, and 2462, T 17, CCR, 

93116.1, 93116.2, 93116.3 , 93116.3.1

03/22/07 Within-the-scope finding/waiver 

requested December 5, 2008.

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2476 11/19/98 Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR part 59, subpart F.

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 

2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 

2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Similar federal regulation. 40 CFR 

part 59, subpart F.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 & 2477

12/11/03 Waiver granted (non-road) January 

9, 2009 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Within-the-scope finding and waiver request January 29, 2007

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05

No emissions reductions. No cruise 

ships subject to rule call at SJV 

ports. See Initial Statement of 

Reasons for Rule, p. II-1. 

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric 

Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, 

CCR, 93118

12/08/05

No emissions reductions claimed for 

SJV.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships 

and Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration 

(amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119

11/16/06 No emissions reductions claimed for 

SJV.
TSD for the Final Action

on 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.

APPENDIX TABLE A-6

Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the

California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Antiperspirant/Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94500-

94506 11/09/89 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Consumer Products BAAQMD. T 17, CCR, 94520-

94526 06/14/90 Not applicable to the SJV area

Phase I - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507-

94517 10/11/90 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Phase II - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94501, 

94502, 94505, 94514, 94503.5, 94506, 94507 -

94513, 94515

01/09/92 Approved 8/21/95 (60 FR 43379)

Notice of General Public Interest for Consumer 

Products. T 17, CCR, 94507 - 94517 11/30/92 Not a control measure

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 

17, CCR, 94540-94555 09/22/94 Voluntary compliance option. No action.

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control 

Plan. T 17, CCR, 94520-94528, 94540-94543, 

94547.

03/23/95 Superseded by 6/22/00 rule.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer 

Products, and Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, 

CCR, 94500-94506, 94508, 94521

09/28/95

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants;

superseded by 11/17/06 rule for 

consumer products; superseded by 

11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating 

products.

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer 

Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test 

Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a), 

94526

11/21/96

Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for 

antiperspirants and deodorants;

superseded by 11/17/16 rule for 

consumer products; superseded by 

11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating 

products.

Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products 

Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517, 

94321

11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-37

APPENDIX TABLE 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 MidTerm Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 

94513

10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control 

Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 

94700, 94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for 

Para-Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 

94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, 

and 94526, and CARB Method 310, which is 

incorporated by reference 

06/24/04

Approved November 4, 2009 (74 

FR 57074) (EO order date of 

5/6/05)

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 

94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06

Approved November 4, 2009 (74 

FR 57074) (EO order date 

9/16/07)
TSD for the Final Action

on 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), CARB is required 

to adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes CARB, 

in cooperation with the districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, 

and develop test methods. The installation and operation of CARB-certified vapor recovery 

equipment is required and enforced by SJVUAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622 (approved 74 FR 

56120 (October 30, 2009). Appendix Table A-7 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by CARB 

since 1990 that address vapor recovery equipment certification, defects, and/or test methods.

APPENDIX TABLE A-7

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94010-94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95

CARB sets requirements for and 

certifies vapor recovery equipment.

District rules establish requirements 

for the installation of CARBcertified 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 incorporated test 

procedures, CP-201, TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6

06/24/99

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In 

Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011

03/23/00

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

(Emergency Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 

94011

03/23/00

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods 

and Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 

94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & 

incorporated procedures

10/25/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Defects. T 17, 

CCR, 94006 and incorporated document. 11/15/01

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures.

T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 

94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, 

and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference.

12/12/02

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, 

CCR, 94011 07/22/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-39

APPENDIX TABLE A-7

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated 

document

08/24/04

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification 

procedure

11/18/04

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 

94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks 

(AST). T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94016 and 94168

and incorporated documents

06/21/07

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-40

G. Other State Measures

A number of CARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed in 

Appendix Tables A-2 through A-7. These measures are listed below in Appendix Table A-8.

APPENDIX TABLE A-8

Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted

by the California Air Resources Board

1990 to 2006

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Airborne Air Toxic Measure for Ethylene Oxide 

from Sterilizers & Aerators. T 17, CCR, 93108 05/10/90

Covered by District Rule 7021.

Emissions in category are less than 

0.01 tpd VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of 

Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 

17 & 26, CCR, 93107

12/10/92 Adopted as District Rule 7060.

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic 

Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance 

and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111

04/27/00 Mainly addresses non-VOC

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface 

Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105

07/26/01

Controls equivalent to SJVUAPCD

Regulation VIII, approved 71 FR 

8461 (2/17/06)

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile 

Equipment Refinishing Coatings Containing 

Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds.

T 17, CCR, 93112

09/20/01

Air toxic control measures 

prohibits additives with hexavalent 

chromium. Total emissions CA are 

less than 300 lb per year. ISOR, p. 

V-2.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations.

T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01

Minimal impact, few units 

certified. See ISOR for 9/28/06 rule 

amendment

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02

Regulated by Rules 4103 & 4106.

Rule 4103 revised 5/17/07, 

approved 75 FR 74 FR 57907 

(11/10/09). Rule 4106 (revised 

6/21/01), approved 67 FR 8894 

(2/27/02); additional revision in 

2010.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & 

documents incorporate by reference

2/26/04

PM control measure. NOx regulated 

by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 

1819 (1/10/08)). PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved primarily 

by replacement of existing engines 

as a result of District rule.
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA-Region 9 Page A-41

APPENDIX TABLE 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, 93102.5

12/09/04

Air toxic control measures. Total 

emissions (chromium & nickel in 

CA are less than 200 lb per year.

ISOR, p. IV-6 to 8.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, 

CCR, 93115

05/26/053/17/05

Revisions to 2/26/04 rule. PM 

control measure. NOx regulated by 

Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 

(1/10/08)). PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved primarily 

by replacement of existing engines 

as a result of District rule.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary 

Compression Ignition Engines (amendments, In-Use 

Agricultural Eng. Exemption removal). T 17, CCR,

93115.1-93115.15.t.

11/16/06

PM control measure. NOx regulated 

by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 

1819 (1/10/08)) PM reductions are 

expected to be achieved primarily 

by replacement of existing engines 

as a result of District rule.

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations.

T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 

94207-942142

10/19/06

Addition of 2013 standards NOx

and VOC standards for DG units 

which burn waste gas.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome 

Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 

17, CCR, 93102.1-93102.16

12/07/06

Air toxic control measures. Total 

emissions in CA are 14.4 lb per 

year. ISOR, p. 49.
Appendix B – SJVUAPCD Rules
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-1

APPENDIX TABLE 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-2

APPENDIX TABLE 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 measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-3

APPENDIX TABLE 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 9/16/2010 76 FR 53640

(8/29/11)

Control strategy measure
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-4

APPENDIX TABLE 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 6/16/2011

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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-5

APPENDIX TABLE 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 action
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-6

APPENDIX TABLE 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

Final 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

9/17/2009 9/17/2009 9/17/2009 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-7

APPENDIX TABLE 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 6/16/2011

76 FR 70886 

(11/16/11)

4606 Wood Products Coating 

Operations 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 52894(10/15/09)

4607 Graphic Arts 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 12/18/2008 74 FR 52894

(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

Final 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 measure 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-8

APPENDIX TABLE 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 No sources

4653 Adhesives and Sealants 9/16/2010 9/16/2010 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 measure 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-9

APPENDIX TABLE 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 8/18/2011 8/18/2011 8/18/2011

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 Commercial 

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 470761 

(8/4/11) Control strategy measure 
TSD for the Final Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-10

APPENDIX TABLE 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 8/18/2011 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, fantype, 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 Action

on the SJV 2007 Ozone SIP December 15, 2011

EPA- Region 9 Page B-11

APPENDIX TABLE 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 76 FR 26609 

(5/9/11)
Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9 —December 15, 2011