# 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

## Technical Support Document for the Action on the San Joaquin Valley Extreme 1-Ho ur Standard Ozone Plan and SJV Portion of the 2003 State Strategy

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

A. Ozone Air Quality Planning in the San Joaquin Valley

B. The Transition to the 8-Hour Ozone St andard and Revocation of the 1-Hour Ozone
Standard

II. Air Quality Modeling Evaluation

A. Introduction

B. Evaluation of the Modeling Demonstration

C. Conclusion

III. District Control Measures

IV. State Measures

A. State Rulemaking Actions 1989 to 2008

B. State Rulemaking Actions that Do No t Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

C. State Fuel Measures

D. State Consumer Product Measures

E. State Vapor Recovery Measures

F. State Waiver and Related Measures

G. Other State Measures

V. Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis

A. The RACM Requirement and RACM Analysis in the 2004 SIP

B. RACM for Non-RACT Source Categories

## Technical Support Document for the Action on the San Joaquin Valley Extreme 1-Ho ur Standard Ozone Plan and SJV Portion of the 2003 State Strategy

Table of Contents - Continued

C. Reductions Need to Advance Attainment by One Year

D. Prelimimary RACT Analysis

VI. Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Actions

A. Emission Inventory

B. Reasonably Available Control Measur es (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

C. Treatment of Waiver Measures

D. ARB Commitments

E. Rate of Progress Demonstration

F. Attainment Demonstration

G. Contingency Measures

H. VMT Offset Requirement

I. Clean Fuels/Technology for Boilers

J. Other Comments

## Technical Support Document for the Action on the San Joaquin Valley Extreme 1-Hour Ozone Standard Plan and the SJV Portion of the 2003 State Strategy

I. Introduction and Background

This technical support document (TSD) provides EPA’s 1 

### detailed analysis of the air quality modeling and control meas ures in support of its actions to approve, under the Clean Air Act and EPA regulations, the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone standard pl an. It also includes our full responses to all comments received on the July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33933) and October 2, 2009 (74 FR 50936) proposed rulemakings.

A. Ozone Air Quality Planning in the San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Contro l District (SVAPCD) adopted the “Extreme
Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan” on Oc tober 8, 2004 and amende d it on October 20, 2005 to, among other things, substitute a new “Chapter 4: Control Strategy.” The State submitted the plan (with the exception of Chapter 8 2 

### ) and amendment as revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) on November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006, respectively. See letters from Catherine Witherspoon, California Air Res ources Board (ARB), to Wayne Nastri, EPA, November 15, 2004 and March 6, 2006. The plan and amendment, collectively, will be referred
to as the “2004 SIP” in this TSD. The 2004 SIP addresses CAA requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone areas, including emission inventories, modeling, control measures, and rate-of-progress (ROP) and attainment demonstrations.

For the reductions needed to demonstrate at tainment and ROP, the 2004 SIP relies in part on the “2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan.” This strategy document identifies ARB's regulatory agenda to reduce oz one and particulate matter in
California and includes defined stat ewide control measures to be reflected in future SIPs and provisions specific to air quality plans for th e San Joaquin Valley. On October 23, 2003, ARB adopted the “2003 State and Fede ral Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,” which consists of two elements: 1) the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan (released August 25, 2003); and 2) ARB Board Resolution 03-22 which approves the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy w ith the revisions to that Strategy set forth in Attachment A. On Ja nuary 9, 2004, ARB submitted the strategy to EPA.
Letter from Catherine With erspoon, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, January 9, 2004. 3

1 Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” mean U.S. EPA.

2 Chapter 8 “California Clean Air Act Triennial Prog ress Report and Plan Review” was included in the plan to meet a State requirement to report every three years on the area’s progress toward meeting California’s air quality standards. Nothing in the chapter was intended to address federal Clean Air Act requirements.

3 On February 13, 2008, ARB withdrew from EPA co nsideration certain commitments related to the South
Coast Air Basin in the "Final 2003 State and Federal Stra tegy for the California State Implementation Plan." These withdrawals do not change the 2003 Strategy’s provisions that apply to the San Joaquin Valley. Letter from JamesTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 2

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### In this TSD, we refer to the two documen ts comprising the "Final State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implemen tation Plan" as the "2003 State Strategy”

On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted “C larifications Regarding the 2004 Extreme
Ozone Attainment Demonstrati on Plan” (“2008 Clarifications”). The State submitted the 2008 Clarifications on September 5, 2008. Letter from James N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, September 5, 2008. The 2008 Clarifications provide updates to the 2004 SIP related to reasonably available control technology (RACT) meas ures adopted by the SJVAPCD, the ROP demonstration, and contingency measures.

We refer to the three submittals combined as the “2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan” or “2004 1-hour ozone plan.”

SJVAPCD and ARB began work on the 2004 1-h our ozone plan in June 2002 using the
best information and data then available. See 2004 SIP, p. 1-10. The plan’s air quality modeling is a product of the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS). CCOS is a multi-phase project designed to improve the understanding of the trans port, formation, and fate of lower atmosphere ozone throughout a large portion of central and northern California. The project included an extensive field meteorology and air quality measurement program during the summer of 2000
with some additional fieldwork in 2001. It also included emission inventory development, data analysis, and air quali ty simulation modeling. CCOS and its companion study, the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), also provide the technical underpinnings of the Valley’s 8-hour ozone standa rd and PM2.5 standards attainmentplans. CCOS represents an $18 million public-private investment in understanding and improving the Valley’s air pollution problem.

Based on the area’s attainment needs as determined by the air quality modeling, SJVAPCD committed to adopt or revise 30 VOC and NOx rules as well as to achieve an additional 5 tpd VOC and 5 tpd NOx reductions from further study measures. See Table 1 below. See also, 2004 SIP, table 4-1 and p. 5-12. In total, the District committed to reduce emissions from sources under its control by 33.3 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 21.1 tpd NOx. In addition to the District’s commitments, ARB committed to achieve 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2010. See 74 FR at 33938.

Between State and District controls, the 2004 1-hour ozone plan provides over 48 tpd VOC and 41 tpd NOx reductions from rules and commitments. Rules adopted by EPA, ARB, and the District prior to the plan’s development contribute an additional 80.8 tpd VOC and 172 tpd NOx reductions over the 10-year timeframe of the plan. In a ll, emissions in the Valley were projected to decrease by 129 tpd VOC and 213 tpd NOx from 2000 to 2010. See Table 2 below and ARB Staff Report, p. 3. 4

N. Goldstene, ARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA, February 13, 2008.

4 ARB, “Proposed 2004 State Implementation Plan for Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley, Staff Report,” released September 28, 2004.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004 Plan Specific Rule Commitments

NOx Control Measures

Rule Number and Description
from 2004 SIP 2004 SIP
Commitment

(2010–tpd) Achieved
Emission
Reductions (2010-tpd) Local Adoption Approval Cite/Date

9310 - Fleet School buses 0.1 0.6 5 9/21/06 Final signed 12/11/09 9510 - Indirect Source Mitigation 4.0
-- 12/15/05 See note below 4307 - Small Boilers (2-5 MMBtu/hr) 1.0 5.1 4/20/06 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)

4352 - Solid Fuel Boilers 0.0 0.0 5/18/06 Proposal: 74 FR 65042 (12/9/09) 4702 - Stationary. Internal Combustion Engines 8.0 16.8 1/18/07 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)

4309 - Commercial Dryers (I) 1.0 0.7 12/15/05 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) 4308 - Water Heaters (0.075 to 2 MMBtu/hr) 0.2 0.8 10/20/05 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07)

4103 - Open Burning 1.1 1.7 5/17/07 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09)

4703 - Stationary Gas Turbines 0.6 1.9 8/17/06 74 FR 74 53888 (10/21/09) Long-term measures 5.0 -- See notes below
NOx Totals 21.1 27.6



### VOC Control Measures

Rule Number and Description
from 2004 SIP 2004 SIP
Commitment

(2010–tpd) Achieved
Emission
Reductions (2010-tpd) Local Adoption Approval Cite/Date

4409 - Oil & Gas Fugitives 4.7 5.1 4/20/05 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) 4455 - Refinery. & Chemical Process Fugutives 0.2 0.3 4/20/05 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06)

4694 - Wineries 0.7
-- 12/15/05 See notes below. 4565 - Composting/Biosolids 0.1
-- 3/15/07 See notes below. 4612 - Automotive Coating (incorporates Rule 4602) 0.1 1.0 9/20/07 Final signed: 12/3/09

4570 - CAFO Rule 15.8 17.7 6/15/06 Final signed: 12/11/09 4662 - Organic Solvent Degreasing

4663 - Organic Solvent Cleaning 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09)

74 FR 37948 (7/30/09)
Final signed: 12/3/09

5 Table 1 in the 2008 Clarifications erroneously gives this reduction as 1.6 tpd. See email, Jessi Hafer, SJVAPCD, to Frances Wicher, EPA, February 18, 2009, “Reductions from 1-hour SIP clarifications.”Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 4

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 2004 Plan Specific Rule Commitments

4603 - Metal Parts/Products

4604 - Can and Coil Coating

4605 - Aerospace Coating

4606 Wood Products Coating

4607 - Graphic Arts

4612 - Automotive Coating

4653 - Adhesives

4684 - Polyester Resin Operation 1.3 3.1 9/20/07 Final signed: 12/3/09
Final signed: 12/11/09
74 FR 52894 (10/15/09)
74 FR 52894 (10/15/09)
Final signed: 12/3/09
74 FR 52894 (10/15/09)

Final signed: 12/11/09

4401 - Steam-Enhanced Oil-Well 1.4 0.3 12/14/06 Final signed: 12/11/09
4651 - Soil Decontamination <0.05 0.0 9/20/07 74 FR 33397 (7/13/09) 4103- Open Burning 2.9 3.9 5/17/07 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) 4682 - Polymeric Foam Manufacturing 0.1
-- 9/20/07 See notes below 4621 & 4624 - Gasoline storage & transport 0.9 1.9 12/20/07 74 FR 33397 (7/13/09)

Long-term measures 5 See notes below
VOC totals 33.3 33.3 Source: 2008 Clarifications, page 5-6 (Table 1).

Notes: This rule has been adopted and submitted. EPA is currently reviewing the rule for SIP action. Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding. The District committed to achieve an additional 5 tpd NOx and 5 tpd of VOC reductions from unidentified long-term measures and has fulfilled this commitment through achieving greater emissions reductions from adopted rules than originally expected.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 5

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 2 Summary of Emission Reductions in the 2004 SIP (tons per summer day)

VOC NOx 2000 baseyear emissions 443.5 556.8
2010 baseline emissions 365.1 396.8 2010 Attainment emissions target 314.4 343.5
Reductions needed for attainment 129.1 213.3

Baseline Measures

SJVAPCD -8.5 6 

### 18.9
State 79.3 97.2
Federal 7.6 43.9
Total 78.4 160
Percent from Baseline Measures 61% 75%

Interim Measures
SJVAPCD adopted rules 2.4 12.2
Percent from Interim Measures 2% 6%
Control Strategy Measures
SJVAPCD (includes long-term measures) 33.3 21.1
State 15 20
Total 48.3 41.1 Percent from Control Strategy Measures 38% 19%
Source: ARB Staff Report, table III-6. Percen tage may not sum to 100% because of rounding.



### B. The Transition to the 8-Hour Ozone Standa rd and Revocation of the 1-Hour Ozone
Standard

In 1979, we set the health-based national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard) for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over one hour. See 44 FR 8220 (February 9, 1979).

In 1997, we replaced the 1-hour ozone standa rd with an ozone standard set at 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 7 

### See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). At the time we established the 8- hour standard, we considered and reject ed retaining a 1-hour ozone standard:

6 The negative number here indicates that emissions in creased in the source categ ories under the District’s authority to control. The increase is mainly from growth in livestock operations. ARB Staff report, table III-6.

7 References to the 8-hour standard in this document are to the standard as established in 1997. In 2008, EPA lowered the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). On September 16, 2009, EPA announced that it will reconsider the 2008 8-hour ozone standard to “ensure they are scientifically soundTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 6

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### For the reasons discussed above..., the Administ rator finds that replacing the current 1- hour standard with an 8-hour standard, in combination with the decisions on level and form described below, is appr opriate to provide adequate a nd more uniform protection of public health from both short-term (1 to 3 hour s) and prolonged (6 to 8 hours) exposures to [ozone] in the ambient air.

62 FR 38856, 38863 (July 18, 1997)

In 2004, EPA designated and classified most areas of the country under the 8-hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). At the same time, we issued the "Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 1" (Phase 1 rule or 8-hour implementation rule). 69 FR 23951 (Apr il 30, 2004). Among other matters, the Phase 1
rule revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJ V area (as well as in most other areas of the country), effective June 15, 2005. S ee 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005). The Phase 1 rule also set forth anti-backsliding principles to ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by id entifying which 1-hour ozone standard requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of that standard. 40 CFR 51.900(f). 8 

### In revoking the 1-hour standard, EPA stated:

We believe the strong anti-backslid ing provisions in [40 CFR 51.905] will ensure that not only will controls already adopted under the 1-hour [ozone standard] continue to be implemented until an area attains the 8-hour [ozone standard], but also that there will be no or minimal delay in obtaining additional emissions reductions comparable to those that would have been required had the 1-hour [ozone standard] remained in pl ace. Although attainment of the 1-hour [ozone standard] would no longer be a goal, the provision s of section 51.905 would retain the ROP obliga tions that would have been required under the 1-hour [ozone standard]. Furthermore, the provi sions of section 51.905 also would retain an area’s obligation to either expediti ously complete the 1-hour attainment
demonstration or obtain emissions reducti ons toward meeting the 8-hour [ozone standard] that substitute for those that would have been required had an area completed its attainment demonstration on a schedule more expeditious than that

and protective of human health.” See press release, “E PA Announces it Will Reconsider National Smog Standards,” September 16, 2009.

8 The Phase 1 rule also identified several CAA requ irements, such as contingency measures in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), that would not continue to apply after revocation. See § 51.905(e). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Co lumbia Circuit subsequently vacated the provisions of the Phase 1 rule that waived the requirements under the revoked 1-hour ozone standard for, among other things, contingency measures for failure to attain or to make reasonable further progress toward attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. See South Coast Air Quality Manageme nt District, et al., v. EPA , 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 (2007 ) (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the i ssues on which the court granted the petitions for review) (collectively referred to below as South Coast ). On January 16, 2009, EPA proposed to remove the contingency measure exemption in 40 CFR 51.905(e) for th ese requirements and to list contingency measures as applicable requirements under § 51.900(f). 74 FR 2936.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 7

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### required solely for the 8-hour [ozone standard]. Thus, retaining the 1-hour [ozone standard] itself would become largel y superfluous from the standpoint of obtaining timely emissions reductions.

60 FR 23951, 29970 (April 30, 2004).

The San Joaquin Valley is designated nonattainment for both the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and 2008 24-hour PM2.5 standards. See 40 CFR 81.305. The 2004 1-hour ozone plan that EPA is ac ting on here was developed to address the now-revoked 1-hour ozone standard, a nd we have found that it meets all the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The plan is not intended to address either the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 standards. It will, however, contribute to wards their attainment. We note that SJVAPCD and the State have developed and submitted pl ans to address the now-applicable 1997 8-hour
ozone as well as the 1997 PM2.5 standards 9 

### and that these plans are based on the State’s latest on-road mobile source emissions model, EMFAC 2007. In addition, the SJV has recently been designated nonattainment for the 2007 PM2.5 24-hour standard and and will be developing additional plans to address both this PM2.5 standa rds and and a revision to the 8-ozone standard expected next year. 10



## II. Air Quality Modeling

A. Introduction

This section provides a disc ussion of the modeling analysis provided in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Extreme Ozone Attainment Demons tration Plan, October 8, 2004. It discusses the adequacy of the analys is, and how the analysis meets EPA’s modeling requirements and performance goals. The ozone ai r quality modeling in the plan provides the
basis for the attainment demonstration. To be approved, the State submission must show that plan demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard as e xpeditiously as practicable, but
not later than 2010.

B. Evaluation of the Modeling Demonstration

As required by the Clean Air Act, California has used photochemical grid modeling in its demonstration that the control strategy for th e San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area will
achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2010.

9 SJVAPCD, “2007 Ozone Plan,” April 30, 2007; SJVAPCD, “2008 PM2.5 Plan,” April 30, 2008; and ARB, “Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan,” adopted September 27, 2007.

10 The SJV has recently been designated nonattainme nt for the revised 24-hour PM2.5 standard and now has 3 years to produce a plan addressing that standard. See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). In addition, the District will need to prepare a new ozone plan to address the revised 8-hour ozone standard. This plan will likely be
due in 2013. See Fact Sheet “EPA to Reconsider Ozone Pollution Standards,” September 16, 2009 available at htttp://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/pdfs/O3_ Reconsideration_FACT%20SHEET_091609.pdf.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 8

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### The modeling analysis performed by CARB , and included in the plan, simulates the ozone air quality levels that resu lt from the emissions that occur in the San Joaquin Valley. This modeling analysis is used as a basis for determining the level of routine emissions that can be allowed in the area and provide for atta inment of the ozone one hour standard.

The modeling analysis included the plan is based on a multi-stage process. First, appropriate episode days that represent days co nducive to ozone formation in the San Joaquin Valley are selected. Second, a modeling platfo rm, including photochemical model, domain, number of vertical layers, grid resolution, initial and boundary c onditions, and other factors most appropriate for the San Joaquin Valley area are selected. Third, the air quality, including ozone levels, on the selected episode days are simulate d, using the appropriate day specific emissions. Finally, the simulated ozone levels are compared to measured ozone values, and the performance of the selected modeling platform on each of the modeled episode days is determined and compared to EPA performance criteria. When the modeling analysis is acceptable, it then forms
the basis for the attainment demonstration.

The state’s analysis is provided in the plan in Chapter 5: Future Ozone Air Quality, and in Appendix D: Modeling and Attainment Demons tration. These documents provide the basis for the modeling that was reviewed by EPA and compared to EPA guidance. 11



### 1. Episode Characterization

EPA’s Guideline sets forth a recommended procedure for selecting ozone exceedance episodes appropriate for conducting a modeling demonstration.

EPA guidance recommends that “a minimum of 3 primary days should be simulated.” EPA guidance also recommends that ”In addition to considering the magnitude of the highest observed daily maximum concentration in making this choice, data ava ilability and quality, model performance, availability of regional modeling analysis, pervasiveness, frequency with which observed meteorological conditions coin cide with exceedances, and duration of observations greater than 0.12 ppm may be considered.”

In the selection of the appropriate episodes, the state focused primarily on episodes which occurred during the time period of the year 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) because of the enhanced data availability and quality. The CCOS study had extensive measurements of ozone, hydrocarbons, oxides of n itrogen, and other chemical species. The data obtained during this study provided a wealth of detailed, high sensitivity information about the San Joaquin Valley area’s atmospheric chemistry with data on ozone, carbon monoxide, NO, and

11 “Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model,” EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); “Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,” EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996); “Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for AttainmentDemonstrations, Mid-Course Review Guidance,” March 28, 2002; and “Guidance for Improving Weight-ofEvidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reduction Not Modeled,” November 1999.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 9

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### NO2. More specific information regarding the CCOS field study is ava ilable in Appendix D: Modeling and Attainment Demonstration, of the plan.

Five candidate episodes for the SIP modeling analysis were considered for this modeling exercise. Three episodes that occurred during th e time period of intensive measurement during the 2000 Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) were considered: June 17-18, July 31-August 2, and September 17-21. In addition, two episode s that occurred outside the CCOS time period were considered: July 11-12, 1999; and August 6-16, 2002.

Each of the three primary CCOS episodes wa s initially modeled by one the participating CCOS agencies or their contra ctors. Of the three CCOS epis odes, the July 31- August 2, 2000 episode was considered to be the most representa tive of the transport and formation of ozone in the San Joaquin Valley. The September 17-21 ep isode was also considered, but the model performance did not meet the performance criteria, so further analysis of the episode was not pursued.

Two episodes that occurred outside the CCO S time period were also considered: July 11- 12, 1999 and August 6-16, 2002. However, because the CCOS episodes had superior data availability and quality, the Ju ly 30-August 2, 2000 was determined to be a better candidate for the modeling exercise

EPA believes that the extended episode fr om July 30-August 2, 2000 is an acceptable episode for development of the 1-hour ozone standard attainment plan. The episode encompasses 4 exceedance days for the study area (San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area) and 2 exceedance days in the San Joaquin Valley. It also has the advantage of being during the CCOS study’s in tensive data collection period.

2. Photochemical Modeling

CARB used the Comprehensive Air Qu ality Model with Extensions (CAMx) photochemical grid model, which is based on well established treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry similar to the Urban Airshed photochemical grid Model(i.e., UAM),
for the attainment demonstration. EPA believes th at this model is an appropriate model for use to develop the SJV SIP attainment demonstration.

3. Modeling Domain

The modeling domain for modeling for the SJV one hour ozone plan extends from the Los Angeles County in the south to the Califor nia/Oregon border in the north, and from the
Pacific Ocean into Nevada in the east and is shown in Figure D-6 (p. D-41) Appendix D: Modeling and Attainment Demonstration in th e plan, and Figure 1: Air Quality Modeling Domain for the CCOS July-August episode, below.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 10

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### Figure 1: Air Quality Modeling Domain for the CCOS July-August episode.

EPA guidance states that:

It is recommended that the domain’s downw ind boundary be sufficiently far from the CMSA/MSA that is the principal focus of th e modeling study to ensure that emissions
from the CMSA/MSA occurri ng on the primary day for each selected episode remain within the domain until 8:00 pm on that day. The extent of upwind boundaries will depend on the proximity of large upwind sour ce areas and the adequacy of techniques used to characterize incoming precursor con centrations. Large upwind emission source
areas should be included in the modeling domain to the extent practicable. Also, if large uncertainty is anticipated for the dom ain boundary conditions, the upwind boundaries
should be located at a distance sufficient to minimize boundary effects on the model predictions in the center of the domain.

EPA believes that the domain selected for th e modeling exercise is sufficiently large to characterize incoming precursors and minimize boundary effects for the San Joaquin Valley.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 11

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


### 4. Horizontal Grid Cell Size

The horizontal Grid cell size used for the phot ochemical modeling exercise in the plan is 4 kilometers (km) by 4km.

EPA recommends that the size of the horizonta l grid cells should not be greater than 5km by 5 km, and grid cell sizes smaller than 2km by 2 km are not recommended because of potential model formation inconsistencies for those grid sizes. The grid cells should be small enough to reflect emission gradients and dens ities in urban areas, particular ly those resulting from large point sources and major terrain or wate r features that may affect air flow.

EPA believes that the 4km by 4 km grid cell size is appropriate for this modeling application.

5. Vertical Structure

The vertical structure for the San Joaquin Va lley modeling exercise c onsists of 16 layers, and is shown in Table 1: Vertical Structure, shown below.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 12

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 1 Vertical Structure of the Air Quality Modeling Domain for the July/August 2000 Episode Based on the MM5 and CALMET Meteorological
Models

Layer
Number MM5 CALMET

Thickness

(meters) Height (meters above ground level) Thickness (meters) Height (meters above ground level)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 24
26
56
66
74
133
161
182
205
232
265
356
488
666
926
1140 24
50
106
172
246
379
540
722
927
1159
1424
1780
2268
2934
3860
5000 20
40
40
100
100
100
200
200
200
500
500
500
500
500
500
1000 20
60
100
200
300
400
600
800
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
5000

EPA guidance recommends that a minimum of five vertical layers be used in the modeling study, with at least thr ee layers above the morning mixing height. EPA encourages greater detail in the grid cell size particularly in modeling domains containing complex terrain or
land/water interfaces.

EPA believes that the 16 layer vertical st ructure for the SJV modeling exercise meets EPA criteria and is of sufficient resolution for the San Joaquin Valley domain.

6. Initial and Boundary Conditions

The initial and boundary concentrations fo r the San Joaquin Valley modeling exercise
were based on a combination of USEPA default values, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) default values, and m easurements taken during the CCOS study. EPA
Guidance states that:Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 13

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### To develop initial and boundary conditions , it is recommended that one or more monitoring stations be sited upwind of the central urban area along the prevailing wind trajectories that give rise to the exceedance.

The sampling and analysis program should provi de data to calculate hourly values for ozone, NO, NO2 and speculated hydrocarbons.

At the inflow boundaries, air quality data at the surface and aloft should be used whenever available to specify the boundary conditions.

The enhanced data base for the CCOS study pr ovided information to develop initial and boundary conditions for ozone, NO, NO2 and speciated hydrocarbons.

The top boundary concentrations develope d for the domain were based on the clean profile defined by EPA guidance, with the excep tion of the ozone concentration of 70 ppb, which
was based on ozonesonde measurements collected at Granite Bay and Parlier during the CCOS study.

Table 2 Initial and Boundary Conditions for the CCOS Domain

Compound Initial Conditions Boundary Conditions

Non-SJV SJV Top Pacific (West and part of southern) Overland Boundary

Reactive Hydrocarbons 60.7 ppbC 121.4 ppbC 22 pbbc 22ppbc 60.7 ppbC

Carbon
Monoxide 200 ppm 200 ppm 350

ppm 350 ppm 200 ppm

Oxides of Nitrogen 2.0 ppb 2.0 ppb 2.0 ppb 0 ppb (NO) 2.0 ppb

Ozone 40 ppb 40 ppb 70 ppb 40 ppb 40 ppb

EPA believes that the EPA guidance criteria was met in developing initial and boundary conditions using data from the CCOS field study measurements, use of EPA default values, and SCAQMD default values.

7. Model Performance Evaluation Data

EPA guidance recommends that the data ba se used in the attainment demonstration modeling meet the requirements for the enhanced ozone monitoring system promulgated by
EPA.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 14

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### EPA believes that the CCOS study, describe d above, meets the objectives of the EPA enhanced ozone monitoring system.

8. Base year Model Performance Evaluation

Model performance was evaluated for ni ne sub-regions of the modeling domain, including the Fresno and Bakersfield areas in the San Joaquin Valley, and well as for the Sacramento Delta and San Francisco Bay Areas.

EPA guidance recommends the following math ematical formulations be applied as measures for model performance evaluation:

Unpaired highest prediction accuracy – Th e measure quantifies the difference between the highest observed value and highest pr edicted value over all hours and monitoring
stations.

Normalized bias test – This test measures the models ability to replicate observed patterns during the times of day when availa ble monitoring and modeled data re most likely to represent similar spatial scales.

Gross error of all pairs above 60 ppb- In conjun ction with bias measurements, this metric provides an overall assessment of base case performance and can be used as a reference to other modeling applications. Gross e rror can be interpreted as precision.

EPA guidance recommends that the statis tical performance be compared with the following ranges:

Unpaired highest prediction accuracy , +/- 15-20% (0.8 -1.2), Normalized bias test , +/5-15%, and Gross error of all pairs above 60 ppb , 30-35%

The model performance for each of these cr iteria is shown for Fresno and Bakersfield, below, for the CAMx/CB4 and CAMx/SAPRC99f.

Model performance with CAMx /CB4 is s hown for Fresno in Table 3: Fresno Model Performance, below, and Bakersfield in Tabl e 4: Bakersfield Mode l Performance. EPA performance criteria are met for Unpaired Peak ratio, Normalized Bias and Gross Error for each of the episode days.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 15

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 3 Fresno Model Performance – CAMX /CB4

Day Observed peak Simulated
Peak Unpaired
Peak Ratio Normalized Bias % Gross Error
%
EPA Guideline
Performance Goals 0.8-1.2 +/- 15% 35

July 29, 2000 July 30, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 2, 2000 129
118
118
131 130
128
124
127 1.01
1.09
1.05
0.97 -08
+03
-09
-10 18
17
20
22

Table 4 Bakersfield Model Performance – CAMX /CB4

Day Observed peak Simulated
Peak Unpaired
Peak Ratio Normalized Bias % Gross Error
%
EPA Guideline
Performance Goals 0.8-1.2 +/- 15% 35

July 29,200 July 30,2000 August 1, 2000 August 2, 2000 128
115
116
151 123
119
114
129 0.96
1.04
0.98
0.85 -12
-12
-15
-13 20
18
19
21

Model performance with CAMx / SAPRC99f is shown for Fresno in Table 5: Fresno Model Performance – CAMx /SAPRC99f, below, a nd Bakersfield in Table 6: Bakersfield Model Performance – CAMx /SAPRC99f. EPA performan ce criteria are met for Unpaired Peak ratio,
Normalized Bias and Gross Error for each of the episode days. The CAMX/ SAPRC99f simulated peaks are higher on most days than th e CAMx/CB4, so therefore, the normalized bias
is smaller.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 16

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 5 Fresno Model Performance – CAMx /SAPRC99f

Day Observed peak Simulated
Peak Unpaired
Peak Ratio Normalized Bias % Gross Error
%
EPA Guideline
Performance Goals 0.8-1.2 +/- 15% 35

July 29, 2000 July 30, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 2, 2000 129
118
118
131 144
138
132
137 1.12
1.17
1.12
1.04 -03
+06
-05
-02 17
18
21
22

Table 6 Bakersfield Model Performance – CAMx /SAPRC99f

Day Observed peak Simulated
Peak Unpaired
Peak Ratio Normalized Bias % Gross Error
%
EPA Guideline
Performance Goals 0.8-1.2 +/- 15% 35

July 29, 2000 July 30, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 2, 2000 128
115
116
151 149
132
120
140 1.16
1.15
1.04
0.92 -02
-07
-10
-07 25
20
19
20

EPA believes that the model performance meets the performa nce criteria for the one hour ozone standard, and is acceptable.

9. Base Case Sensitiv ity to Natural Sources

Several simulations were conducted to determ ine the sensitivity of the modeling analysis
to variations in natural source emission estimations. To assess the sensitivity of the model to biogenic emissions, two emission sc enarios were evaluated; one scenario setting the biogenic emissions to zero, and one scenario increasing the biogenic emission estimations by 25%. The sensitivity of the 1-hour ozone values to thes e changes is shown for the modeling results in Bakersfield in Table 7: Sensitivity of ozone valu es to Natural Sources in Bakersfield, below.

An additional simulation was conducted to determine the sensitivity of ozone levels predicted by the model to wildfire emissions. The ozone levels which result from the modeling
scenario with wildfire emissions removed from the emission inventory are shown below in Table 7. The peak one hour ozone levels for this simu lation are up to 7% less in the Bakersfield area, compared to ozone levels in the base case, in dicating a fairly substantial wildfire impact on ozone levels during the July - August 2000 episode.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 17

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 7 Sensitivity to Natural Sources in Bakersfield

Day Base

case No Fires + 25% Biogenics No Biogenics

Ppb ppb % Change Ppb % Change Ppb % Change
July 31 August 1 August 2 129
119
135 0
-2
-9 0
-2
-7 2
1
1 2
1
1 -8
-8
-10 -6
-7
-7

C. Conclusion

EPA believes that each of the components in the modeling analysis is acceptable. The appropriate episode days that represent day conducive to ozon e formation in the San Joaquin Valley were selected. The modeling platform , including photochemical model, domain, number of vertical layers, and initia l and boundary conditions most appropriate for the San Joaquin Valley area, meet EPA criteria and are appropriate . Finally, the performance of the selected modeling platform on each of the modeled episode days meets the performance criteria specified in EPA guidance. EPA believes that the modeling an alysis in the plan is acceptable, and that it, therefore, forms an appropriate basis for the attainment demonstration in the plan.

References for Section II

Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991); “Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS,” EPA-454/B-95-007 (June 1996).

Guidance for the 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Ar eas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-Cour se Review Guidance (March 28, 2002);

Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reduction Not Modeled (November 1999).

“Guideline for Regulatory App lication of the Urban Airshe d Model,” EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 18

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

## III. District Measures

As described in the proposal, we have di vided the control measures in the 2004 SIP’s attainment demonstration among three categories: baseline measures, interim measures, and control strategy measures. As the term is used here and in the proposal, baseline measures are rules and regulations adopted pr ior to September, 2002 (i.e., prio r to 2004 SIP’s development) that provide continuing reductions through 2010. We have defined interim measures as those rules adopted between September, 2002 and the 2004 SIP’s adoption date in October, 2004. See Table III-7 in the ARB staff report (insert fuller c ite). Finally, control strategy measures are the new rules, rule revisions, and commitments th at provide the additiona l increment of emission reductions needed beyond the baseline and interim measures to demonstrate attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard in the SJV. See Tables III-6 and III-8 in the ARB staff report.

We have listed SJVAPCD’s VOC and NOx ru les in Table 8. We have also provided information on each rule’s most recent adoption/re vision date, its approval date and cite and the adoption/revision date of the approved rule, and whether the measure is a baseline, interim, or control strategy measure.

As can be seen from the Table 8, we have approved or proposed for approval the latest
revision of all baseline and interi m rules or, if not the revision, the last revision of the rule adopted prior to October 2004.Technical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 19_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No.RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4103Open Burning5/17/20075/17/20075/17/200774 FR 57907(11/10/09)xxx4104Reduction of AnimalMatter12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 48(1/02/08)x4106Prescribed Burning6/21/20016/21/20016/21/200167 FR 8894(2/27/02)x4301Fuel BurningEquipment5/21/19925/21/19925/21/199264 FR 26876(5/18/1999)x4302Incinerator Burning12/16/199312/16/199312/16/199364 FR 45170(8/19/1999)x4303Orchard Heaters12/16/199312/16/199312/16/199364 FR 45170(8/19/1999)x4304Equipment TurningProcedures forBoilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters10/19/199510/19/199510/19/199566 FR 57666(11/16/01)xNo VOC or NOxlimits.4305Boilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters -Phase 28/21/20038/21/20038/21/200369 FR 28061(5/18/04)xRule superseded byRules 4306, 4307, and43084306Boilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters -Phase 310/16/200810/16/20089/18/200310/16/200869 FR 28061(5/18/04)NPR: 74 FR41104 (9/14/09)xTechnical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 20_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4307Boilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters - 2.0MM BTU/hr to 5.0MMBTU/hr10/16/200810/16/20084/20/200610/16/2008(proposal)72 FR 29887(5/30/07)NPR: 74 FR41104 (9/14/09)x4/20/06 revisioncredited in attainmentdemonstration.4308Boilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters -0.75 MM BTU/hr to2.0 MMBTU/hr10/20/200510/20/200510/20/200572 FR 29886(5/30/07)x4309Dryers, Dehydratorsand Ovens12/15/200512/15/200512/15/200572 FR 29886(5/30/07)x4311Flares6/15/20066/15/20066/20/20026/15/2006(proposal)68 FR 8835(2/26/03)NPR: 72 FR65283(11/20/07)xNo emissionreductions from6/15/06 rule creditedin attainmentdemonstration.4313Lime Kilns3/27/20033/27/20033/27/200368 FR 52510(9/4/2003)x4320Advanced EmissionReduction Option forBoilers10/16/2008N/AN/AN/A4351Boilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters -RACT8/21/20038/21/20038/21/200369 FR 28061(5/18/04)xRule superseded byRules 4306, 4307, and4308Technical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 21_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4352Solid Fuel FiredBoilers, SteamGenerators, andProcess Heaters5/18/20065/18/20065/18/2006(proposed)NPR:74 FR 65042(12/9/2009)xNo emissionreductions from thisrule credited inattainmentdemonstration.4354Glass MeltingFurnaces10/16/20088/17/20068/17/200672 FR 41894(8/01/07)4401Steam-EnhancedCrude Oil ProductionWells12/14/200612/14/200612/14/2006NFR signed(12/11/09)xxNFR is a limitedapproval/limiteddisapproval4402Crude Oil ProductionSumps12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 48(1/02/08)x4403Components ServingLight Crude Oil orGases at Light CrudeOil and GasProduction4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14652(3/23/06)Superseded by Rule44094404Heavy Oil TestStation -- Kern12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 48(1/02/08)x4405Oxides of NitrogenEmissions fromExisting SteamGenerators (Centraland Western KernCounty)1992not submittednotsubmittedN/ASuperseded by Rule43064407In-situ CombustionWell Vents5/19/19945/19/19945/19/199460 FR 12121(3/6/95)xTechnical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 22_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4408Glycol DehydrationSystems12/19/200212/19/200212/19/200268 FR 51187(8/26/03)x4409Components at LightCrude Oil or Gases atLight Crude Oil andGas Production4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14653(3/23/06)x4451Valves, PressureRelief Valves,Flanges, ThreadedConnections andProcess Drains atPetroleum Refineriesand Chemical Plants4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14652(3/23/06)Rule superseded byRule 44554452Pump and CompressorSeals at PetroleumRefiners4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14653(3/23/06)expired 4/20/06 reductionincorporated into Rule 44554453Refinery VacuumProducing Devices orSystems12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 48(1/02/08)x4454Refinery ProcessTurnaround12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 48(1/02/08)x4455Components atRefineries4/20/20054/20/20054/20/200571 FR 14652(3/23/06)x4501Alternate Compliancefor BARCT19991999N/Ano action4550ConservationManagement Practices8/19/20048/19/20048/19/200471 FR 7683(2/14/06)Technical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 23_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4565Biosolids, AnimalManure, and PoultryLitter Operations3/15/20073/15/2007N/AxNo emissionreductions from thisrule credited inattainmentdemonstration.4570Confined AnimalFacilities6/15/20066/15/20066/15/2006(proposed)NFR signed:12/11/09xNFR is a limitedapproval/limiteddisapproval4601Architectural Coatings10/31/200110/31/200110/31/200169 FR 34(1/02/04)x4602Motor Vehicle andMobile EquipmentCoating Operations9/21/200612/20/200112/20/200167 FR 42999(6/26/02)expired 12/31/08 - replaced byRule 46124603Surface Coating ofMetal Parts andProducts10/16/2008(2007)10/16/200810/16/2008NFR signed:12/3/09xx4604Can and Coil CoatingOperations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/07NFR signed:12/3/09xx4605Aerospace Assemblyand ComponentCoating9/20/20079/20/20079/20/2007NFR signed:12/11/09xxNFR is a limitedapproval/limiteddisapproval4606Wood ProductsCoating Operations10/16/2008(2007)10/16/200810/16/200874 FR 52894(10/15/09)xx4607Graphic Arts10/16/200810/16/200810/16/200874 FR 52894(10/15/09)xxTechnical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 24_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4610Glass CoatingOperations4/17/20034/17/20034/17/200369 FR 60962(10/14/04)x4612Motor Vehicle andMobile EquipmentCoating Operations --Phase 29/20/20079/20/20079/20/2007NFR signed:12/3/09x4621Gasoline Transfer intoStationary StorageContainers12/20/200712/20/200712/20/200774 FR 33397(7/13/09)xx4622Gasoline Transfer intoMotor Vehicles12/20/200712/20/200712/20/200774 FR 33397(7/13/09)x4623Storage of OrganicLiquids5/19/20055/19/20055/19/200570 FR 53937(9/13/05)x4624Transfer of OrganicLiquids12/20/200712/20/200712/20/200774 FR 52894(10/15/09)x4625WastewaterSeparators12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 49(1/2/08)x4641Cutback, Slow Cure,and EmulsifiedAsphalt Paving andMaintenanceOperations12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 49(1/2/08)x4642Solid Waste DisposalSite4/16/19984/16/19984/16/199866 FR 38939(7/26/01)xTechnical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 25_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4651Soil DecontaminationOperations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 52894(10/15/09)xx4652Coatings and InkManufacturing1992not submittedN/AN/A4653Adhesives9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 52894(10/15/09)xx4661Organic Solvents9/20/20079/20/20075/16/200268 FR 54167(9/16/03)x4662Organic SolventDegreasingOperations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 37948(7/30/09)xx4663Organic SolventCleaning, Storage, andDisposal9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 37948(7/30/09)xx4672Petroleum SolventDry CleaningOperations12/17/199212/17/199212/17/199273 FR 48(1/2/08)x4681Rubber TireManufacturing12/16/199312/16/199312/16/199363 FR 43881(8/17/98)x4682Polystyrene,Polyethylene, andPolypropyleneProductsManufacturing9/20/20079/20/20076/16/199460 FR 31086(6/13/95)xxNo emissionreductions from the9/20/07 rule assumedin attainmentdemonstration.Technical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 26_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments4684Polyester ResinOperations9/20/20079/20/20079/20/07NFR signed12/11/09xxNFR is a limitedapproval/limiteddisapproval.4691(461.02)Vegetable OilProcessing Operations4/11/19914/11/19914/11/199159 FR 2535(1/18/94)x4692CommercialCharbroiling3/21/20023/21/20023/21/200268 FR 33005(6/03/03)x4693Bakery Ovens5/16/20025/16/20025/16/200269 FR 22441(4/26/04)x4694Wine Fermentationand Storage Tanks12/15/200512/15/2005N/Ano actionxNo emissionreductions from thisrule assumed inattainmentdemonstration.4695Brandy and WineAging2009N/AN/AN/A4701I/C Engines - Phase 18/21/20038/21/20038/21/200369 FR 28061(5/18/04)4702I/C Engines - Phase 21/18/20071/18/20071/18/200773 FR 1819(1/10/08)x4703Stationary GasTurbines9/20/20079/20/20079/20/200774 FR 53888(10/21/09)xx4902Residential WaterHeaters6/17/19936/17/19936/17/199369 FR 7370(2/17/04)x4905Natural Gas-fired, fantype, residentialcentral furnaces10/20/200510/20/200510/20/200572 FR 29886(5/30/07)Technical Support Document –December 11, 2009San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 27_____________________________________________________________________________________________Table 8Status and Allocation of San Joaquin ValleyRulesDecember 11, 2009Rule No. RuleDate of MostRecent RuleAdopted/RevisedDate of MostRecent RuleSubmittedDate ofMost RecentRuleApprovedFederal RegisterCitePre2002Baseline2002-2004Interim1-HrVOC1-HrNOXComments3170Federally-MandateOzone NonattainmentFees5/16/025/16/025/16/02NFR signed121/1/09NFR is a limitedapproval/limiteddisapproval9310School Bus9/21/20069/21/20069/21/2006NFR signed12/11/09x9510Indirect Source Review12/15/200512/15/2005N/AN/AxNo emissionreductions from thisrule credited inattainmentdemonstration.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 28

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


## IV. State Measures

A. ARB Rulemaking Actions 1989 to 2008

Table 9 is a list of all measures adopte d by ARB from late 1989 until end of 2008. This period covers the 15 years prior to the submittal of the 2004 SIP in November 2004 and should includes any substantive rule that would sti ll be generating emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley in the attainment year of 2010.

This list does not include limits on pesticide emissions adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). Th e 2004 Plan does not rely on reductions from the
DPR rule. The list also does not include th e State’s inspection a nd maintenance program adopted by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).

Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

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" Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/14/90 Not applicable

Consumer Products Regulations for the BAAQMD. T 17, CCR, 94520-94526 06/14/90 Consumer productsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 29

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Category

Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not applicable

Emission Standards for Medium Duty Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1968.1, 2061, 2112,
2139 06/14/90 On-road

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Fuels

Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not applicable

Emission 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 & Emission 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 an d 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 Trichlor oethylene 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 applicableTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 30

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008
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 Pr ocedures. 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 Ga soline, 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 FuelsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 31

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008
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 Fuels

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 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 Fuels

CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems. T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not applicable

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-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 32

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008
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" Emission 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 applicableTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 33

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Category

Predictive Model for Phase II CaRFG. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262-2270 06/09/94 Fuels

Small Refiner Diesel. T 13, CCR, 2282(e)(1) 07/24/94 Fuels Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/28/94 Not applicable

Utility and Lawn and Garden Equipment Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403(c), 11(a)(1)( I)(ii), 4(a)(1)(I)(ii) 07/28/94 Off-road

Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94540-94555 09/22/94 Consumer products

Diesel Fuel Certification. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b)&(d), 1960.1(k), 2292.6 09/22/94 Fuels

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not applicable Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180- 2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 On-road

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1,
& Certification Procedures 12/08/94 On-road

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR,
2190 12/08/94 On-road

Specification for Alterna tive 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-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 34

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Category

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, and Aerosol Coating Products. T 17, CCR, 94500-94506, 94508, 94521 09/28/95 Consumer products

Low Emission Vehicle Standards 3 (LEV 3). T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1965, 2101, 2061, 2062, and incorporate test procedures 09/28/95 On-road

Test Methods for CaRFG 13, CCR, 2263(b) 10/26/95 Fuels Required Additives in Gasoline (Deposit Control Additives). T 13, CCR, 2257 and incorporates testing procedures. 11/16/95 Fuels

CaRFG Housekeeping & CARBOB. T 13, CCR, 2263.7, 2266.5, 2260, 2262.5, 2264, 2265, 2272 12/14/95 Fuels

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 On Road/Off Road

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not applicable

CaRFG Variance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 2271 (Emergency) 01/25/96 Fuels

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Off-road

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 On-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not applicable

Basin Boundaries for Agricultural Burning (Mojave Desert, South Coast & Salton Sea). T 17, CCR, 60104, 60109, 60114, 80280, 80311 05/30/96 Not applicable

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301-93355, Appendix A-E (emission 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-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 35

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Diesel Fuel Certification Test Methods . T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k ), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Test Methods. T 13, CCR, 1956.8(b), 1960.1(k), 2281(c), 2282(b), (c) and (g) 10/24/96 Fuels

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a),
94526 11/21/96 Consumer products

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not applicable Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517,
94321 11/21/96 Consumer products

Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not applicable Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 On-road

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Consumer products

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Fuels

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2465 03/27/97 Off-road

Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not applicable

Interchangeable Emission 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 productsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 36

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Heavy Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection Program/Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR, 2180-2188 and 2190-2194 12/11/97 On-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not applicable

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400,2410-2414 03/26/98 Off-road

Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090-
60095 04/23/98 Not applicable

Heavy Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2036, 2112 and test procedures 04/23/98 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not applicable

Cleaner Burning Gasoline Model Flexibility. T 13, CCR, Sections 2260, 2262.1, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.7 and 2265 08/27/98 Fuels

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98 Vapor Recovery

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not applicable

Gasoline Deposit Control Additive Regulation. T 13, CCR, 2257, and incorporating test procedures 09/24/98 Fuels

Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not applicable

Area Designations and Criteria for the National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60301, 60202, 60205, 60206, 70300- 70306, 70303.1 10/22/98 Not applicable

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Off-road

Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94101 - 94104, 94106, 94108 - 94113, 941T 17 - 94124,
94137 and revision of Method 12. 10/22/98 Not applicable

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-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 37

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category
Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 2470-2476 11/19/98 Off-road

Consumer Products - LV P-VOC Definitions And Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the
amendment of ARB Method 310 11/19/98 Consumer products

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & Antiperspirants and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 11/19/98 Consumer products

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414,
2415 12/10/98 Off-road

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 Marine Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off-road

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On-road

Revisions to Statewid e 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 Pe troleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requ irement 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 applicableTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 38

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

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, 8 0150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 8029 0, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not applicable

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (Emergency Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011 03/23/00 Vapor Recovery

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic
Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 Other

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control Measure. T 17, CCR, 9450 8, 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 applicableTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 39

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Engine s "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 Elect ric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Not applicable

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of documents by reference 07/26/01 Off-road

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR,
93112 09/20/01 Not applicable

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700-90705 10/25/01 Not applicable

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods and Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & incorporated procedures 10/25/01 Vapor Recovery

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 Guid elines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 OtherTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 40

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Se rvice Information Rule. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607-2610 02/21/02 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On-road

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR,
2700-2710 05/16/02 On-road

Review of California Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 06/20/02 Not applicable

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Fuels

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 2112, & documents incor porated 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 inco rporated by reference, and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 12/12/02 Vapor RecoveryTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 41

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Low Emission Vehicles II. Align Heavy Duty Gas Engine Standards with Federal Standards; minor administrative changes. T 13, CCR, 1961, 1965, 1956.8, 1956.1, 1978, 2065 and documents incorporated by reference 12/12/02 On-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Amendments for 2003. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 1961(a) and (d), 1900, 1962, and documents incorporated by reference 03/25/03 On-road

Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not applicable

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR,
2415 07/24/03 Off-road

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.75, 90800.9, 90804, 90800.8, 90801, 90802, and 90803 07/24/03 Not applicable

Specifications for Motor Vehicle Diesel Fuel. T 13 & T 17, CCR, 1961, 2281, 2282, 2701, 2284, 2285, 93114, and incorporated test procedure 07/24/03 Fuels

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 On-road

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400-2409, 2405.1, 2405.2, 2405.3, 2750-2754, 2754.1, 2754.2, 2755-2767, 2767.1, 2768-2773 and the documents incorporated by reference 09/25/03 Off-road

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Consumer products

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorporate by reference 12/11/03 Other

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements (Amendments). T 13, CCR, 2701-2707 & 2709 12/11/03 On-road

Area Designation Criteria and Area Designations for State PM2.5 and Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205,
60210 01/22/04 Not applicable

CA Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 01/22/04 On-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 42

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Stat ewide 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, 9450 9, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Consumer products

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On-road

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel
Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated
document 08/24/04 Vapor Recovery

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On-road

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2263, 2265 (and the incorporated “California Procedures”), and 2266.5 11/18/04 Fuels

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harborcraft & Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 11/18/04 FuelsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 43

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification procedure 11/18/04 Vapor Recovery

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and
90803 11/18/04 Not applicable

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Fuels

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, CCR, 93102.5 12/09/04 Not applicable

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Off-road

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not applicable

Transit Fleet Rule. T 13, CCR, 2023, 2023.1, 2023.2, 2023.3, 2023.4, 1956.1, 2020, 2021, repeal 1956.2, 1956.3, 1956.4 02/24/05 On-road

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not applicable

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 Other

Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not applicable

On-Board Diagnostic Sy stem Requirements for 2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty Engines (HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1 07/21/05 On-road

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 09/15/05 On-road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new
2467.8 and 2467.9. 09/15/05 Off road

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 10/20/05 On-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 44

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 Off road

Marine Inboard Sterndrive Engines. T 13 CCR 2111, 2112, 2441, 2442, 2444.2, 2445.1, 2446, 2447, and incorporated document 11/17/05 Off-road

Auxiliary Diesel Engines and Diesel-Electric Engines Operated on Ocea n-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 Se rvice Information Rule. T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On-road

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 Vapor Recovery

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464,
and 2465 06/22/06 Off-road

Off-Highway Recreational Ve hicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Off-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 45

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by reference 09/28/06 On-road

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 On-road

Distributed Generation Guid elines 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" Emission 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

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Dry Cleaning Perchloroethylene. T 17, CCR, 93109, 93109.1 and
93109.2 01/25/07 Not applicable

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. T 17, CCR, 70100.1 and 70200 02/22/07 Not applicable

Emission Warranty Information Reporting & Recall Regulation. T 13, CCR, 1958, 2111, 2122, 2136, 2141, and documents in corporated therein 03/22/07 On-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 46

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

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 Off-road

Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. T 17, CCR, 93120 and 93120.1 to
93120.12 04/26/07 Other

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.9, 2263, 2263.7, 2264.2, 2265 (and the incorporated docs), 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2271, 2273, 2260(a)(0.5), (0.7), (7.5), (8.5), (10.5), (10.7), (19.7), (23.5), (23.7), 2262.3(d), 2264.2(a)(3), (b)(5), (d), 2265(c)(4), 2265.1, 2265.5, 2266(b)(3), (4), and (5) 06/14/07 Fuels

Emission Control and Smog Index Labels Regulations. T 13, CCR, 1965 and incorporated
documents 06/21/07 On-road

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST) T 17, CCR , 94010 and 94011, 94016 and 94168 and incorporated documents 06/21/07 Vapor Recovery

In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles. T 13, CCR,
2449 07/26/07 Off-road

Indoor Air Cleaning Devices. T 17, CCR, 94800-
94810 09/27/07 Not applicable

Aftermarket Catalyst Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2299.5 and T17, CCR 93118.5 and documents incorporated by reference 10/25/07 On-road

Commercial Harbor Craft. T 13, CCR, 2222 and incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters" 11/15/07 Off-road

Gaseous Pollutant Measurement Allowances for Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and the documents incorporated by
reference 12/06/07 On-road

Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Emission Reporting. T 17, CCR, 95100 to 95133 12/06/07 Not applicable

In-Use Heavy Duty Diesel Drayage Trucks at Ports and Intermodel Railyards. T 13, CCR, 2027 12/06/07Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 47

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power). T 13, CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and documents incorporated by reference 12/06/07 Off-road

Verification Procedures, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines. T 13, CCR, 2700, 2701, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2705, 2706, 2708, 2709, 2710. 01/24/08 Off-road

Zero Emission Vehicle Standards. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1961, 1962, and 1962.1 and the incorporated
“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 and Subsequent Model ZEVs, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid EVs, in thePassenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and MediumDuty Vehicle Classes.” T 13, CCR, 1962.1 and the incorporated “CA Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model
ZEVs" 03/27/08 On-road

Consumer Products Regulation. T 17, CCR, 94500- 94506.5; 94507-94517, 94520-94528; and 94700-
94701 06/26/08 Consumer products

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean-Going Vessel Main Engines and Auxiliary Boiler. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, CCR, section 93118.2 07/24/08 Fuels

Spark-Ignition Marine Engines and Boat Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2147, 2440, 2441, 2442, 2443.1, 2443.2, 2443.3, 2444.1, 2444.2, and 2445, and Repeal 2448 and the documents incorporated by reference 07/24/08 Off-road

Portable Outboard Marine Tanks and Components. T 13, CCR, 2468, 2468.1, 2468.2, 2468.3, 2468.4, 2468.5, 2468.6, 2468.7, 2468.8, 2468.9 and 2468.10 09/24/08 Off-road

AB 118 Air Quality Guidelines. T 13, CCR, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2343, 2344, 2345 09/28/08 Not applicable

Large Spark Ignition Engines < 1 liter. T 13, CCR,
2433 11/20/08 Off-road

Small Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403, 2405, 2406, 2408, and 2409 11/20/08 Off-road

SmartWay Truck Efficiency. T 17, CCR, 95300, 95301, 95302, 95303, 9530 4, 95305, 95306, 95307, 95308, 95309, 95310, 95311, and 95312. 12/11/08 On-road

Truck / Bus Regulation 2008 12/11/08 On-roadTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 48

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 9 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resource Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Category

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A Vapor Recovery



### B. State Rules that Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

A substantial number of the measures adopt ed by ARB since late 1989 do not affect ozone-precursor emissions in the San Joaquin Valle y. These types of measures include fee rules, identification of toxic air contaminants, area bou ndary designations, and controls for pollutants other than VOC or NOx (e.g., chromium). Table 10 provides a list of these measures.

Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Transported Pollutants (Ozone). T 17, CCR, 70500 12/04/89 Not an emission reduction

measures
Non-vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94002, 94003 17, &26, 94146-94149, 94132, 94135, 94139, 94140 01/11/90 Not an emission reduction

measures

Test Method for Asbestos in Serpentine Aggregate. T 17, & 26, CCR, 94147, Method 435 04/12/90 Not an ozone control measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos in Surfacing Applications. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93106 04/12/90 Not an ozone control measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.1, 90800, 90802-90803 05/10/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90704, 93300-93347 05/10/90 Not an emission reduction

measure
Dioxins Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Medical Waste Incinerators. T 17, CCR, 93104 07/12/90 Not an ozone control measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/14/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Criteria for Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard. T 17, CCR, 70303 & 70304 06/14/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Emission Reduction Accounting Procedures for California Clean Air Act. T 17, CCR, 70700-70704 07/12/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Identification of Inorganic Arsenic as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/12/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR,
70600-70601 08/09/90 Not an emission reduction

measureTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 49

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Comments

Air Toxic Fee Schedule & Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700- 90704, 93300-93347 09/13/90 Not an emission reduction

measure

Identification of Trichlor oethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 60200-60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not an ozone control measure

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not an emission reduction

measure
Identification of Chloroform as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 12/13/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, et.

seq. 12/13/90 Not an emission reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.2, 90801, 90803 02/24/91 Not an emission reduction

measure
Non - Vehicular Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94131, 94132, 94142 04/11/91 Not an emission reduction

measure. Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90621.2, 90620, 90622 04/11/91 Not an emission reduction
measure. Obsolete. Administrative Hearing Pr ocedures. T 17, CCR, 60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not an emission reduction

measure Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not an emission reduction

measure Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, 93000 08/08/91 Not an emission reduction

measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not an emission reduction

measure Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not an ozone control measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not an emission reduction

measure Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 03/12/92 Not an ozone control measure

Atmospheric Acidity Protection Fees. T 17, CCR,
90621.3 04/09/92 Not an emission reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.3, 90803 04/09/92 Not an emission reduction

measureTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 50

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Comments
Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303,
70304 05/14/92 Not an emission reduction

measure

Transported Air Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500 05/28/92 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90701, 90704, 90705 07/09/92 Not an emission reduction

measure
Identification of 1.3 Butadiene as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 07/09/92 Not an emission reduction

measure CFC Refrigerants in Air Conditioning Systems. T 13, CCR, 2500 09/10/92 Not an ozone control measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emission of Toxic Metals from Non-Ferrous Metal Melting. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93107 12/10/92 Not an ozone control measure

Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 70303.5, 60200-60203, 60205, 70303 12/10/92 Not an ozone control measure

Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600, 70601 03/11/93 Not an emission reduction

measure

Identification of Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants as Toxic Air Contaminants. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93001, 39665, 39666 04/08/93 Not an emission reduction

measure

Acid Deposition Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90622, 90621.4 04/08/93 Not an emission reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.4, 90803 04/08/93 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93300-93347 06/10/93 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/08/93 Not an emission reduction

measure Mitigation Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500,
70600 08/12/93 Not an emission reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93109, 93110 10/14/93 Not an ozone control measure

Conflict of Interest. T 17, CCR, 90500 11/18/93 Not an ozone control measure Criteria for Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200- 60202, 60204, 60206, 60208, 70300-70306 11/18/93 Not an emission 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 emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 26, CCR, 90700-90705 07/28/94 Not an emission reduction

measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60204 11/09/94 Not an emission reduction

measureTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 51

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Comments
Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not an emission reduction

measure Employee-Based Trip Reductions Emission Formula. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700-90705 and Appendix A 01/25/96 Not an emission reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17, CCR, 90803, 90800.7 04/25/96 Not an emission 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 an emission reduction
measure. Not a pplicable to SJV

Regulation Improvement and Repeal. T 17, CCR, 93301-93355, Appendix A-E (emission inventory) 05/30/96 Not an emission reduction

measure

Emissions Inventory Criteria & Guideline Report. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 07/25/96 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90701-90705 Appendix A to §§ 90700-90705 09/26/96 Not an emission reduction

measure Stationary Source Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94105, 94107, 94114, 94135, 94141, 94143, 94161 09/26/96 Not an emission reduction

measure

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201-60209 11/21/96 Not an emission reduction

measure
Transport Pollutants. T 17, CCR, 70500, 70600 11/21/96 Not an emission reduction

measure Identification of Inorganic Lead as Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). T 17, CCR, 93000 04/24/97 Not an emission reduction

measure Interchangeable Emission Reduction Credits. T 17, CCR, 91500 05/22/97 Not an emission reduction

measure Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR 90701-90705 and Appendix A §§ 90700-90705 11/13/97 Not an emission reduction

measure Area Designations '97 . T 17, CCR, §§ 60201 &
60205 11/13/97 Not an emission reduction

measure Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T 17,CCR 90800.... 01/29/98 Not an emission reduction

measure Classifying Minor Violations. T 17, CCR, 60090-
60095 04/23/98 Not an emission reduction

measure
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating. T 17, CCR, 93102 05/21/98 Not an ozone control measure

Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 08/27/98 Not a control 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 emission reduction

measureTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 52

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Comments
Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR,
60040 and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not an emission 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 emission reduction

measure

Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90701-90705 and Appendix A 10/22/98 Not an emission reduction

measure
Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not an emission reduction

measure

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17 Amendments 80145, 80T 179, 80100-80102, 80110, 80120, 80130, 80140, 8 0150, 80155, 80160, 80T 170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 80260, 80270, 80280, 8029 0, 80300, 80310, 80311, 80320, 80330 03/23/00 Not an emission reduction

measure

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not an ozone control measure

Conflict of Interest Code. T 17, CCR, 95001, 95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not a control measure

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 17, CCR, 80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not a SJV control measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not an emission reduction

measure Area Designations for the State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not an emission reduction

measure Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 &
70600 04/26/01 Not an emission reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 07/26/01 Not an ozone control measure

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 an ozone control measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, CCR, 90700-90705 10/25/01 Not an emission reduction

measureTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 53

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008
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 emission reduction

measure

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, CCR, 60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not an emission reduction

measure Ozone Transport Mitigation Regulations. T 17, CCR, 70600 and 70601 05/22/03 Not an emission 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 emission 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 emission reduction

measure

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. T17, CCR 90805 and 90806; and 90800.8 and
90803 11/18/04 Not an emission reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Hexavalent Chromium and Nickel from Thermal Spraying. T 17, CCR, 93102.5 12/09/04 Not an ozone control measures

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, 60210 01/20/05 Not an emission reduction

measure State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 70100, 70100.1, and 70200 04/28/05 Not an emission reduction

measure Definition of Large Confined Animal Facility. T 17, CCR 86500 and 86501 06/23/05 Not an emission reduction

measure
Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not an emission reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Chrome Plating and Chromic Acid Anodizing Operations. T 17, CCR, 93102.1-93102.16 12/07/06 Not an ozone control measure

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Emission Inventory Criteria and Guidelines. T 17, CCR, 93300.5 and document incorporated by reference 11/16/06 No an emission reduction

measure

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201, 60202, 60205, &
60210 11/16/06 Not an emission reduction

measure

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Dry Cleaning Perchloroethylene. T 17, CCR, 93109, 93109.1 and
93109.2 01/25/07 Not an ozone control measure

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide. T 17, CCR, 70100.1 and 70200 02/22/07 Not an emission reduction

measureTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 54

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 10 Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

That Do Not Address Ozone in the San Joaquin Valley

November 1989 to 2008
Measure Hearing Date Comments
Indoor Air Cleaning Devices. T 17, CCR, 94800-
94810 09/27/07 Addresses indoor air quality.

Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Emission Reporting. T 17, CCR, 95100 to 95133 12/06/07 Not an emission reduction

measure AB 118 Air Quality Guidelines. T 13, CCR, 2340, 2341, 2342, 2343, 2344, 2345 09/28/08 Not an emission reduction

measure



### C. State Fuel Measures

ARB has adopted a number of revisions to its reformulated gasoline program and clean diesel program since 1990, as well as measures addressing other motor vehicle fuels and fuel
standards for off-road sources. Table 11 is a list of thes e revisions.



## Table 11 Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Wintertime Limits for Sulfur in Diesel Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2255 06/21/90 Not an ozone control measure. 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 Proposed for approval, NPR signed 6/30/09

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 Proposed for approval, NPR signed 6/30/09

Emergency Regulation for Temporary Delay of Diesel Fuel Lubricity Standard. T 13, CCR, 2284 11/24/04 Temporary delay of standard. ExpiredTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 55

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



## Table 11 Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

November 1989 to 2008 Measure Hearing Date Comments

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harborcraft & Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 11/18/04 NOx reductions estimated at 0.1 tpd. Part of ARB commitment.
See ARB 6/29/09 Letter

California Reformulated Gasoline (CaRFG), Phase I. T 13, CCR, 2251.5 09/27/90 RVP standard for period between
1992 and 1996. Obsolete.

California Reformulated Ga soline, 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 Not an ozone control measure

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 Not an ozone control measure

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 Requ irement 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
area/ObsoleteTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 56

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



## Table 11 Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

November 1989 to 2008 Measure Hearing Date Comments

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (Phase out of MTBE, standards, predictive model). T 13, CCR, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2264.2, 2265,
2266 etc... 12/09/99 2262.1 renumber to 2262.4; 2264 (designation of alternative limits) not approved; otherwise superseded by 11/18/04 and
6/14/07 rules CaRFG Phase 3 Test Methods. T 13, CCR, sections 2263(b) 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Follow-up Amendments. T 13, CCR, sections 2260, 2261, 2262.3, 2262.5, 2263, 2264, 2265, 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2272, 2273, 2282, 2296, 2297, 2262.9 and incorporated test procedures 11/16/00 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 07/25/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 &
6/14/07 rules

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 12/12/02 Superseded by 11/18/04 & 6/14/07 rule, proposed for approval (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 Proposed for approval, NPR signed 6/30/09

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Operative for September and October 2005 only. Obsolete.

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.9, 2263, 2263.7, 2264.2, 2265 (and the incorporated docs), 2266, 2266.5, 2270, 2271, 2273, 2260(a)(0.5), (0.7), (7.5), (8.5), (10.5), (10.7), (19.7), (23.5), (23.7), 2262.3(d), 2264.2(a)(3), (b)(5), (d), 2265(c)(4), 2265.1, 2265.5, 2266(b)(3), (4), and (5) 06/14/07 Proposed for approval, NPR signed 6/30/09

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 No identifiable emission
reductions

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 No identifiable emission
reductionsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 57

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



## Table 11 Fuel Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board

November 1989 to 2008 Measure Hearing Date Comments
Specification for Alterna tive Motor Vehicle Fuels (M100). T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 No identifiable emission
reductions

Specifications for Liquid Pe troleum Gas Used as a Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 No identifiable emission
reductions
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Propane Limit Specification Delay. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 03/27/97 Expired



### D. State Consumer Product Measures

California has been regulating the VOC cont ent of consumer products for 20 years and continues to tighten standard s and regulate more products. Table 12 is a list of ARB’s rulemaking actions on consumer products since 1989.

. Table 12 Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2008

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.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 58

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### . Table 12 Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Consumer Products, Aerosol Coating Products (ARB Test Method 310). T 17, CCR, 94506(a), 94515(a),
94526 11/21/96 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for antiperspirants and deodorants; superseded by 11/17/16 rule for consumer products; superseded by 11/17/06 rule for aerosol coating products. Consumer Products and Aerosol Coating Products Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94508-94515, 99517,
94321 11/21/96 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule

Consumer Products (Hair Spray) Amendments. T 17, CCR, 94509, 94513, 94514 03/27/97 Voluntary compliance option. No
action.

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 - LV P-VOC Definitions And Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the
amendment of ARB Method 310 11/19/98 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, 9450 8, 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 ruleTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 59

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### . Table 12 Consumer Products Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2008

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for Para-Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 94506, 94507, 94508, 9450 9, 94510, 94512, 94513, 94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is incorporated by reference 06/24/04 Proposed for approval 74 FR 30481 (June 26, 2009) (EO order date of 5/6/05)

Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94513 & 94523 11/17/06 Proposed for approval 74 FR 30481 (June 26, 2009) (EO order date 9/16/07) Consumer Products Regulation. T 17, CCR, 94500- 94506.5; 94507-94517, 94520-94528; and 94700-
94701 06/26/08 Pending approval by Office of
Administrative Law. Not submitted
to EPA.



### E. State Vapor Recovery Measures

Under California State law (Health and Safe ty Code Sections 41954), ARB is required to adopt procedures and performance standards fo r controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline marketing operations, including tran sfer and storage operations. St ate law also authorizes ARB, in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor reco very systems, identify defective equipment, and develop test methods. The installation and opera tion of ARB-certified vapor recovery equipment is required and enforced by SJVAPCD Rules 4621 and 4622. Table 13 is a list of rulemaking actions taken by ARB since 1989 that address vapor recovery equipment certification, defects,
and/or test methods.

Table 13 Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95
ARB sets requirements for and certifies vapor recovery equipment. District rules establish requirements
for the installation of ARB-certified equipment. See SJVAPCD Rules
4621 & 4622 Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94010-94015 and 94150, 94156, 94157, 94158, 94159, 94160, 94162 08/27/98

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test procedures, CP-201, TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6 06/24/99Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 60

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 13 Gasoline Vapor Recovery Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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 inco rporated 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

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/ATechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 61

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### F. State Waiver and Related Measures

Table 14 & Table 15 list measures for on -road and off-road sources adopted by ARB
since 1989.

Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emission Control System Warranty. T 13, CCR, 2035-2041, 1977 12/14/89 Found within the scope 8/14/92 & 4/6/98 (57 FR 38502 (8/25/92) & 63 FR 18406 (4/15/98))

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 8/26/94 (59 FR 48625 (9/22/94))

Evaporative Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1976 08/09/90 Waiver granted 8/25/94 (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 1/7/93 & 4/6/98 (58 FR 4166 (1/13/93) & 63 FR 18403 (4/15/98))

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90 Primarily PM control measure

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and Light & Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1977,
1968.1 09/12/91 Waiver granted 10/2/96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96)) Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1,
1977 11/12/91

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 11/14/91 Confirm within the scope finding requested

Standards and Test Procedures for Alternative Fuel Retrofit Systems. T 13, CCR, 2030, 2031 05/14/92 Compliance provisionsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 62

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Phase 2 RFG certification fuel specifications. T 13, CCR, 1960.1, 1956.8(d) 08/13/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested

Substitute Fuel or Clean Fuel Incorporated Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1960.1(k), 2317 03/12/92 Confirm within the scope finding requested

Smoke Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel & Gasoline Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 1956.8(b) 12/10/92 Primarily PM control measure

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

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1 07/09/93 Waiver granted 10/2/96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Urban Transit Buses. T 13, CCR, 1956.8, 1965, 2112 06/10/93 Found within the scope. 69 FR 59920 (October 6, 2004)

Evaporative Emission Standard s and Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1976 02/10/94 Waiver granted 7/28/99 (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

Self Inspection Program for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines. T 13, CCR, 2190-2194, 2180-2187, 1956.8(b) 11/09/94 Primarily PM control measure

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II. T 13, CCR,1963.1, &
Certification Procedures 12/08/94 Waiver granted 10/2/96 (61 FR 53371 (10/11/96))

Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. T 13, CCR,
2190 12/08/94 Primarily PM control measure

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 Found within the scope 9/28/04 (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 8/13/02 (67 FR 54180 (8/21/02))Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 63

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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

Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Confirm within the scope

Postpone Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1, 1976 03/28/96 Found within the scope 1/18/01 (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

Onboard Diagnostics, Phase II, Technical Status. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 2030, 2031 12/12/96 Confirm within the scope finding requested

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 7/28/99 (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 9/30/98 (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 Primarily PM control measure

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

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 4/11/03 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03))/found within the scope 12/21/06 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 Waiver granted 7/27/06 (71 FR 44027 (8/3/06))Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 64

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98 Revised 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 zeroemission 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. ZEB requirements were revised in 2006 to be delayed until after 2010.

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 LDV & HDV 4/11/03 (68 FR 19811 (4/22/03)) Confirm within scope for HDGE.

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine s "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 Confirm within the scope finding requested

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated
Test Procedure 01/25/01 Found within the scope 12/21/06 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and
Standardization of Elect ric Vehicle Charging Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 06/28/01 Found within the scope 12/21/06 (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 8/19/05 (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 4/21/05 (70 FR 22034 (4/28/05))

California Motor Vehicle Serv ice Information Rule. T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 Compliance provision. Very similar to EPA regulations at 40
CFR 86.1808.01Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 65

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607-2610 02/21/02 Revised 12/7/06

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 Confirm within the scope

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, PM only.

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 Confirm within the scope for
HDGE standards. Waiver granted 8/19/05 (70 FR 50322 (8/26/05))
for rest.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 2480 12/12/02 No emission 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 12/21/06 (71 FR 78190 (12/28/06))

Solid Waste Collection Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2020, 2021, 2021.1, 2021.2 09/24/03 Part of ARB’s commitment.
Estimated emission reductions 0.26 tpd VOC/0.54 tpd NOx. ARB letter, 6/29/09 12

Air b orne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate from Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022
and 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non-road) 1/9/09 (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.

12 Letter, James N. Goldstene, ARB to Laura Yoshii, EPA, June 29, 2009.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 66

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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. Part of
ARB’s commitment. Estimated emission reduction 2.89 tpd NOx. ARB letter, 6/29/09

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model Heavy Duty Engines. T 13, CCR, 1971 05/20/04 Waiver granted 12/22/05 (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 Slight relaxation in requirements over 2000 rule, NOx and PM.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate
from Diesel Fueled Commerci al Vehicle Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 07/22/04 Part of ARB commitment.
Estimated emission reduction 1.34 tpd NOx. ARB letter, 6/29/09

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 Waiver granted 6/30/09.

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 Estimated emission reduction less than 0.1 tpd. ARB letter, 6/29/09

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 8/13/08 (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 Aligns State emission standards
with federal emission standards. Requires transit agencies to mitigate slight NOx increase (max 1.6 tpd statewide, minimal impact in SJV area).

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.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 67

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-F ueled Vehicles Owned or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 12/08/05 Confirm within the scope finding requested. Reductions from measure in 2010 are 0.1 tpd. ARB Letter, 6/29/09.

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. Estimated emission reductions in 2010 are 0.15 tpd NOx. ARB letter, 6/29/09.

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 2709. 03/23/06 Procedures to verify diesel retrofittechnology, supporting rule for inuse control measures.

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 05/25/06 Compliance provisions, adopted to harmonize with EPA requirements.

California Motor Vehicle Serv ice 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 Changes to sections with previous
waivers.

Heavy-Duty In-Use Compliance Regulation. T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.8, and documents incorporated by
reference 09/28/06 Related to enforcement of heavy duty diesel engine standards. 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 until
after 2010.

Voluntary Accelerated Retirement Regulation. T 13, CCR, 2601-2610 and appendices A-D 12/07/06 Establishes standards for a voluntary accelerated retirement

program.

Emission Warranty Information Reporting & Recall Regulation. T 13, CCR, 1958, 2111, 2122, 2136, 2141, and documents in corporated therein 03/22/07 Compliance provisions for waived
emission standards.

Emission Control and Smog Index Labels Regulations. T 13, CCR, 1965 and incorporated
documents 06/21/07 Labeling requirement to provide
consumers better information on GHG and smog impacts of new

cars.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 68

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 14 On-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Aftermarket Catalyst Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2299.5 and T17, CCR 93118.5 and documents incorporated by reference 10/25/07 Compliance provision. Estimated emission reductions 1.10 tpd NOx. ARB letter, 2009.

In-Use Heavy Duty Diesel Drayage Trucks at Ports and Intermodel Railyards. T 13, CCR, 2027 12/06/07 Estimated increase in NOx
emission in 2010 with decrease only after. See ISOR, p. 15.

Gaseous Pollutant Measurement Allowances for Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and the documents incorporated by reference 12/06/07 Identical to EPA's requirements. See Updated Information Digest
for the Rule

Verification Procedures, Warranty and In-Use Compliance Requirements for In-Use Strategies to Control Emissions from Diesel Engines. T 13, CCR, 2700, 2701, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2705, 2706, 2708, 2709, 2710. T 13, CCR 01/24/08 Procedures to verify diesel retrofittechnology, supporting rule for inuse control measures.

Zero Emission Vehicle Standards. T 13, CCR, 1900, 1961, 1962, and 1962.1 and the incorporated
“California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2005 and Subsequent Model ZEVs, and 2001 and Subsequent Model Hybrid EVs, in the Passenger Car, Light-Duty Truck, and Medium-Duty Vehicle Classes.” T 13, CCR, 1962.1 and the incorporated “CA Exhaust Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2009 and Subsequent Model
ZEVs" 03/27/08 Changes to sections with previous
waivers.

Truck / Bus Regulation 2008 12/11/08 No emission reduction credit claimed in 1-hour plan.

SmartWay Truck Efficiency. T 17, CCR, 95300, 95301, 95302, 95303, 9530 4, 95305, 95306, 95307, 95308, 95309, 95310, 95311, and 95312. 12/11/08 Pending Office of Administrative Law approval. No emission
reduction credit claimed in 1-hour plan.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 69

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 15 Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines. T 17, CCR, 2400 et. seq. 12/13/90 Waiver granted 60 FR 48981 (9/21/95)
1-year Implementation Delay in Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2400, 2403-2407 04/08/93 Obsolete

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 Unknown effect.

Relaxation of Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards for Utility Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403 and incorporating test procedures 01/25/96 Tier II standards. Superseded.

Wintertime Requirements for Utility Engines & Off-Highway Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2403 09/26/96 Relaxation of standards applicable to winter only equipment

Small Off-Road Engines (SORE). T 13, CCR, 2400,2410-2414 03/26/98 Waiver granted/found within the scope, 11/10/03 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/06)). 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 for MY 2007 engines, 12/11/06 (71 FR 75536 (12/15/2006))

Small Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 2403, 2405, 2406, 2408, and 2409 11/20/08 Pending Office of Administrative Law approval.

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 2111-2140 01/03/94 Waiver granted 12/23/96 (61 FR 69093 (12/31/1996))

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414,
2415 12/10/98 Allows limited use of noncompliant OHRV in certain area during certain seasons. Not an
ozone control measure.

Off-Highway Recreation Vehicles. T13, CCR,
2415 07/24/03 Makes chances to riding season
restrictions. No effect on ozone.

Off-Highway Recreational Ve hicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents incorporated by reference 07/20/06 Revised riding seasons and adopted evaporative emission
standards identical to EPA's. See Updated Information Digest
for the Rule.

Heavy Duty Diesel Cycle Engines. T 13, CCR,
2420-2427 01/09/92 Waiver granted, 5/15/95 (60 FR 48981 (9/21/1995)) Exemption of Military Tactical Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1905, 2400, 2420 12/14/95 Confirm within the scope finding requestedTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 70

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 15 Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

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 Similar to or same as EPA's
emission standards. See Updated Information Digest for the Rule. Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment (on waiver), 73 FR 58583 (10/7/2008)

Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines. T 13, CCR, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2427 12/09/04 Harmonizes to EPA's Tier 4 standards. See Updated Information Digest for the Rule. Notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment (on waiver), 73 FR 58583 (10/7/2008)

Large Off-Road Spark-Ignition Engine Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2430 et seq., and 2411-2414 10/22/98 Waiver granted 5/15/06 (71 FR 29623 (5/23/2006))
Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large Off-Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 2788, and 2789. 05/26/06 Adopts EPA's Standards for 2007; Adopts more stringent
standards for 2010. Waiver requested.

Large Spark Ignition Engines < 1 liter. T 13, CCR,
2433 11/20/08 Pending approval by Office of
Administrative Law. New
standards start in 2011

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 pending additional testing

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 7/26/01 marine inboard engine standards. Waiver requested.

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). Rule modified in January 2009. Estimated NOx
reductions statewide in 2010 are 13 tpd.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 71

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 15 Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Portable Outboard Marine Tanks and Components. T 13, CCR, 2468, 2468.1, 2468.2, 2468.3, 2468.4, 2468.5, 2468.6, 2468.7, 2468.8, 2468.9 and 2468.10 09/24/08 Comparable EPA standards (see 40 CFR part 1060). Pending
Office of Administrative Law approval. No emission
reductions claimed.
Spark-Ignition Marine Engines and Boat Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 2139, 2147, 2440, 2441, 2442, 2443.1, 2443.2, 2443.3, 2444.1, 2444.2, and 2445, and Repeal 2448 and the documents incorporated by reference 07/24/08 Rule not finalized. Public comment period closed May 30,
2009.

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2465 03/27/97 Waiver requested 12/5/2008.

Revisions to Statewid e Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Waiver requested 12/5/2008.

Modifications to the Stat ewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, CCR Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of
2466 02/26/04 Waiver requested 12/5/2008.

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 Waiver requested 12/5/06.

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 Waiver requested 12/5/2008.

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 Allows registration of Tier 1 and 2 standard engines, increased fees on such engines. Waiver requested 12/5/2008.

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 Made permanent emergency regulations. Waiver requested
12/5/2008.

Aftermarket Parts for Off-Road Engines. T 13, CCR, 2470-2476 11/19/98 Reductions not estimated. Compliance measure

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, CCR, 2470-2478 09/23/99 Similar federal regulation. 40Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 72

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 15 Off-Road Mobile Source Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

Measure Hearing Date Comments

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 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

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel Particulate for Transport Refrigeration Units. T 13, CCR, 2022 & 2477 12/11/03 Waiver granted (non-road) 1/9/09 (74 FR 3030 (1/16/2009))

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Waiver requested 1/12/07

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships Onboard Incineration. T 17, CCR, 93119 11/17/05 No emission 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 Ocea n-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 emission reductions claimed.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Cruise Ships and Ocean-Going Ships Onboard Incineration (amendments). T 17, CCR, 93119 11/16/06 No emission reductions claimed.

Ocean-Going Vessels At Berth (Shore Power). T 13, CCR, 2299.3 and T 17, CCR, 93118.3 and documents incorporated by reference 12/06/07 No emission reductions claimed

Commercial Harbor Craft. T 13, CCR, 2222 and incorporated "California Evaluation Procedures for New Aftermarket Catalytic Converters" 11/15/07 No emission reductions claimed

Cleaner Fuels in Ocean-Going Vessel Main Engines and Auxiliary Boiler. T 13, CCR, 2299.2 and T 17, CCR, section 93118.2 07/24/08 No emission reductions claimed



### G. Other State Measures

A number of ARB measures do not fall into one of the categories of measures listed on Table 8 through 15. These measures are listed below in Table 16.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 73

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 15 Other Not Previously Listed Measures Adopted by the California Air Resources Board
November 1989 to 2009

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

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic
Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 04/27/00 VOC emissions less than 0.01 tpd

Distributed Generation Guid elines 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 5/19/05), approved 70 FR 18216 (4/11/06), revised 5/17/07, proposed for approval 74 FR 30485 (6/26/09). Rule 4106 (revised 6/21/01), approved 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02).

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines. T 17, CCR 93115 & documents incorporate by reference 12/11/03 PM control measure. NOx regulated by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08))

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines (amendments). T 17, CCR, 93115 05/26/05 Changed PM standards for stationary agricultural pumps.

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 PM control measure. NOx regulated by Rule 4702. (approved 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08)) Compliance dates are
after 2010.

Distributed Generation Guid elines and Regulations. T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, &
94207-942142 10/19/06 Addition of standards that apply
in 2013.

Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. T 17, CCR, 93120 and 93120.1 to
93120.12 04/26/07 Emission reductions not relied
on in attainment demonstration



## V. RACM Analysis

A. The RACM Requirement and the RACM Analysis in the 2004 SIPTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 74

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### CAA section 172(c)(1) requi res nonattainment area pl ans to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available c ontrol measures (RACM) including reasonably available control technology (RAC T). RACM is not listed in 40 CFR 51.900(f) as an applicable requirement following revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard; however, EPA interprets the RACM requirement to be a component of an area’s attainment demonstration. See General
Preamble at 13560.

EPA has previously provided guidance in terpreting the RACM requirement in the
General Preamble at 13560 and a memorandum en titled “Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainme nt Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” John Seitz , Director, OAQPS to Regional Air Directors, November 30, 1999 (Seitz memo). In summar y, EPA guidance provides that st ates, in addressing the RACM requirement, should consider all potential measures for source categories in the nonattainment area to determine whether they are reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they would advance the area ’s attainment date by one year.

Under the CAA, RACT is required for major VOC sources and for all VOC source categories for which EPA has issued Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents. In addition, EPA has issued Alterna tive Control Techniques (ACT) doc uments to help states in making RACT determinations. CAA sections 172( c)(1), 182(a)(2)(A), 182( b)(2), and 183(a) and (b). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT also apply to major stationary sources of NOx. In extreme areas, a major source is a stationary sour ce that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons of VOC or NOx per year. CAA section 182(e). The RACT requirement in 182(b)(2), the major source threshold in section 182(e) as it applies to RACT , and the application of RACT to major sources of NOx are applicable re quirements under the Phase 1 rule. ' 51.905(a)(1)(i) and ' 51.900(f)(1), (3) and (12).

To determine which measures would be feas ible for the SJV, the District looked at measures implemented in other areas (includi ng the South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Houston-Galves ton area), documents produced by ARB, as well as measures suggested by the public at local workshops. The Di strict then screened the identified measures and rejected those that affected few or no sources in the SJV, had already been adopted as rules, or were in the process of being adopted. The re maining measures were evaluated using baseline inventories, available control t echnologies, and potential emission reductions as well as whether the measure could be implemented on a schedule th at would contribute to attainment of the 1- hour ozone standard by the 2010 dead line. 2004 SIP, section 4.2.1.

Based on this evaluation, the District deve loped an expeditious rule adoption schedule listing 21 measures involving adopti on of eight new rules and revisions to over 20 existing rules. 2004 SIP, Table 4-1. Since submittal of the SI P in 2004, the District has completed action on these rules and submitted them to EPA for appr oval. 2008 Clarifications, Table 1 and Table 2
below.

In addition to the District’s efforts, the ei ght San Joaquin Valley Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RPTAs) also conducted a RACM evaluation for transportation sources. This evaluation, described in section 4.6.3. of the 2004 SIP, resulted in extensive local governmentTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 75

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### commitments to implement programs to reduce auto travel and improve traffic flow. 2004 SIP, section 4.6 and Appendix C. The local governments also provide reasoned ju stifications for any measures that they did not adopt. See 2004 SIP, Appendix C.

The 2004 SIP relies on the 2003 State Strate gy to address mobile and area source categories not under the District ’s jurisdiction. 2004 SIP, se ction 4.7. Table I-1 in the 2003 State Strategy shows the impressive list of both mobile and area s ource measures that have been adopted by California between 1994 and 2003, along with the mobile source rules that have been adopted by EPA during this period. Table I-2 lists propos ed new State measures, most of which have already been adopted. 13 

### This list of new State measur es was developed through a public process intended to identify and refine new emission reductions strategies for California. 2003 State Strategy, page ES-5.

The 2004 SIP includes a brief section 4.2.5 disc ussing the RACT obligation and specific source categories where further analysis and potentia l future controls may be required in order to
ensure that RACT levels of cont rol are applied to sources down to the 10 tons per year (tpy) level. The District concluded that only a few categories would need additional work, since the District's existing rules already applied a stringe nt degree of control to sources with relatively
low levels of emissions.

The State has since formally withdrawn th e RACT portion of the 2004 SIP, specifically section 4.2.5. See 2008 Clarifications, page 3. On January 21, 2009, we made a finding that California has failed to submit the required RACT demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and initiated sanction and federal implementatio n plan (FIP) clocks under CAA sections 179(a) and 110(c). 74 FR 3442.

On June 17, 2009, California submitted a revi sed 8-hour RACT demonstration adopted by the District on April 16, 2009. 14 

### The State’s intent is that this submittal address not only the failure to submit finding for the 1-hour ozone RACT demonstration but also to address issues raised by EPA regarding 2006 RACT SIP and to assu re that the rules cove r sources in the SJV down to the extreme area major source threshold of 10 tpy. See letter fr om Andrew Steckel, EPA, to George Heinen, SJVAPCD, May 6, 2008. We are currently reviewing the revised RACT plan.

B. RACM for Non-RACT Source Categories

The District’s, RPTAs’, and State’s efforts to evaluate potential controls for the 2004 SIP was thorough and meet our guidance for RACM anal yses. We, therefore propose to find that the

13 See chapter 3 (page 38) of the "Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan," Revised Draft (Release date: April 26, 2007) (2007 State Strategy) and “Status Report on the State Strategy for California' s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of th e 2007 State Strategy,” ARB, April 24, 2009.

14 California submitted SJVAPCD’s initial RACT demonstration plan (adopted August 17, 2006) to EPA on January 31, 2007.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 76

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### 2004 SIP, the 2003 State Strategy, and the Distri ct’s and California’s adopted rules and commitments to adopt and implement controls pr ovide for RACM on source not subject to the CAA sections 182(b)(2) RACT requirement.

C. Reductions Need to Advance Attainment by One Year

Because we have yet to find that the Distri ct has implemented RACT , we must first look to see if the implementation of RACT would advance attainment before we can fully conclude
that the 2004 SIP meets the CAA sec tion 172(c)(1) RACM requirement.

“To advance attainment one year” for the purposes of the 2004 SIP means to implement
sufficient measures to reduce emission levels to the level needed for attainment in 2009 rather than 2010. In order to do this, there must be su fficient reasonably ava ilable control measure to compensate for the increment of additional reductions generated by baseline measures between 2009 and 2010, plus any increment of reductions ge nerated by new measures that rely on fleet
turn over or other accumulation-over-time emission reduction strategy (e.g., incentive programs).

To calculate this level of emission reduc tions, we looked to th e baseline emission inventory in the 2004 SIP for 2008 and 2010 (2004 SI P, Table 3-1), calculated the difference between these two years and divided this num ber by two to determine the annual rate of inventory change between 2008 and 2010. This calcu lation gives us the low end of the range of
emission reductions needed to advance attainme nt by one year. The high end of the range is calculated by assuming that ARB will fulfill its commitment to 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx by adopting engine emission standa rds or retrofit requirements that would accumulate reductions steadily over the 6 years between November 15, 2004 (submittal date of the 2004 SIP) and November 15, 2010 (attainment date). We su mmarize these calculations in Table 10.

Table 17 Reductions Need to Advance Attainment One Year Tons per Summer Day

VOC NOx


### 2008 baseline inventory 374.9 429.1

2010 baseline inventory 367.6 401.7

Baseline reduction
between 2008 and
2010 7.3 27.4

Baseline per year reduction (low end) 3.7 13.7

ARB Commitment 15 20
ARB commitment per year (1/6) 2.5 3.3Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 77

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Table 17 Reductions Need to Advance Attainment One Year Tons per Summer Day

VOC NOx



### Baseline reduction +
ARB commitment (high end) 6.2 17.0

D. Preliminary RACT Analysis

Because we have proposed to concluded th at the SJV 1-hour plan has addressed RACM for all non-RACT emission categories, we now l ook to see if application of RACT to major sources and other source categor ies that require RACT would pr ovide the additional reductions
needed to advance attainment.

In order to advance attainment, substantia l reductions are needed from both VOC and NOx sources. Hence, if sufficient reductions fr om additional RACT-level controls cannot be identified for one of these pollutants, then we can conclude that attainment cannot be advanced and do not need to evaluate potential emission re ductions from measures for the other pollutant.

Because there are fewer NOx rules than VOC rules, we will look first at potential emission reductions from imposing more stringe nt controls on major sources of NOx in the Valley as well as on other NOx sources. Please note that this analysis is not a determination of what constitutes RACT for specific source categories in the SJV nor that the District has implemented RACT . Rather it is a very rough estimate of the potential for additional NOx reductions and is intended solely to determine if it is possible to advance attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in SJV.

Table 18 is a list of all SJVAPCD’s rules that control NOx emissions. For each rule, we
have indicated whether or not EPA has determined that the latest version of the rule meets RACT and, if not, the potential additiona l reductions from further strengt hening the rule. The estimates for additional reductions come, for the most part, from the SJV’s 2007 Plan for Attaining the 8-
hour Ozone Standard.

As can be seen from Table 18, we estimate that at most an additional 2.8 tpd of NOx reductions can be achieved from further tightenin g of the District’s NOx rules given existing
information. If we combine this number with the 4 tpd NOx reduction from the District’s Indirect Source Review Rule (Rul e 9150) which we are currently not crediting in the attainment demonstration, we estimate that at most, there is an additional 6.8 tpd of NOx available to expedite attainment. This leve l of reductions is well short of the low end estimate of 13.7 tpd of
NOx needed to advance attainment in the SJV from 2010 to 2009.

Because the requisite level of NOx reductions to expedite attainment are not available, we do not need to evaluate the potential additio nal VOC reductions that may be achieved fromTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 78

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### the District rules assuming the current rules do no t meet RACT. We can, however, conclude that there are not reasonably available control m easures, including RACT, that can advance
attainment of the 1-hour ozone stan dard in the San Joaquin Valley.



## Table 18 Preliminary Analysis of Additional NOx Reductions
from Potential RACT Measures

Rule
No. Rule Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Adopted/
Revised Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Approved Federal Register Cite Potenti
al Additi

onal
Reduct ions in

2010 Comments

4103 Open Burning 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 74 FR 57907 (11/10/2009) 1.30 Not a RACT source.
Additional reductions from expected 2010 revisions to rule are 1.3 tpd in 2011.

4301 Fuel Burning Equipment 5/21/1992 5/21/1992 64 FR 26876 (5/18/1999) 0.00 NOx limits for these sources set by other rules.

4302 Incinerator Burning 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) 0.05 Total inventory from nonflare incinerators is 0.05 tpd
in 2010. Reductions assume
elimination of the source category. This is a conservative assumption and
not an indication that EPA
believes that RACT for this source category is
elimination of the source.

4303 Orchard
Heaters 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) 0.00 Not an ozone season requirement.

4304 Equipment Turning
Procedures for Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 66 FR 57666 (11/16/01) 0.00 No NOx limits.

4305 Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters -
Phase 2 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 0.00 Rule superseded by Rules 4306, 4307 and 4308.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 79

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



## Table 18 Preliminary Analysis of Additional NOx Reductions
from Potential RACT Measures

Rule
No. Rule Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Adopted/
Revised Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Approved Federal Register Cite Potenti
al Additi

onal
Reduct ions in

2010 Comments

4306 Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters -
Phase 3 10/16/2008 9/18/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 0.00 Found to be RACT.
Estimated reductions from 2008 revisions are 0.0 tpd prior to 2011. 8-hour SIP
Table 6-1.

4307 Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters - 2.0
MM BTU/hr
to 5.0
MMBTU/hr 10/16/2008 4/20/2006 72 FR 29887 (5/30/07) 0.00 Found to be RACT.
Estimated reductions from 2008 revisions are 0.0 tpd prior to 2012.

4308 Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters -
0.75 MM
BTU/hr to
2.0
MMBTU/hr 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) 0.00 Found to be RACT

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators
and Ovens 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) 0.00 Found to be RACT

4311 Flares 6/15/2006 6/20/2002
6/15/2006 68 FR 8835 (2/26/03)
NPR - 72 FR
65283 (11/20/07) 0.08 Proposed to be RACT. District is scheduled to adopt revision to rule in 2nd Q/09
with no additional reductions. (See 8-hour SIP, table 6-1).
Total emission in this category are 0.08 tpd. 2009 RACT SIP, p. 4-56.

4313 Lime Kilns 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 68 FR 52510 (9/4/2003) 0.00 Found to be RACT. Emissions in this category are less than 0.005 tpd. See 2009 RACT SIP, p. 59

4320 Advanced
Emission
Reduction 10/16/2008 N/A N/A Not applicable - incentive program for control levels beyond RACT.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 80

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



## Table 18 Preliminary Analysis of Additional NOx Reductions
from Potential RACT Measures

Rule
No. Rule Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Adopted/
Revised Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Approved Federal Register Cite Potenti
al Additi

onal
Reduct ions in

2010 Comments

Option for
Boilers

4351 Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) Superseded by Rules 4306, 4307, 4308.

4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers,
Steam Generators,
and Process
Heaters 5/18/2006 (proposed)
5/18/2006 N PR
74 FR 65042 (12/11/2009) 0.00 Most limits are proposed to
be RACT

4354 Glass Melting
Furnaces 10/16/2008 8/17/2006 72 FR 41894 (8/01/07) 1.20 Approved revision found to
be RACT. Reductions from
10/16/08 revision are estimated at 1.2 tpd NOx.

4405 Oxides of Nitrogen
Emissions
from Existing
Steam
Generators (Central and
Western
Kern County) 1992 not submitted N/A 0.00 Superseded by Rule 4306.

4701 I/C Engines -
Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 0.00 Rule superseded by Rule
4702.

4702 I/C Engines -
Phase 2 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08) 0.00 Found to be at least RACT.

4703 Stationary
Gas Turbines 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 53888 (10/21/2009) 0.00 Found to be RACTTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 81

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



## Table 18 Preliminary Analysis of Additional NOx Reductions
from Potential RACT Measures

Rule
No. Rule Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Adopted/
Revised Date of
Most
Recent

Rule Approved Federal Register Cite Potenti
al Additi

onal
Reduct ions in

2010 Comments

4902 Residential
Water
Heaters 6/17/1993 6/17/1993 69 FR 7370 (2/17/04) 0.20 Not a RACT source category. District adopt tighter limits on
3/19/09. Estimated reductions are 0.2 tpd in 2011. (8-hour Plan, Table 6- 1.)

4905 Natural Gasfired, fantype, residential
central
furnaces 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) 0.00 Found to be RACT.

Total potential additional reductions: 2.83Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 82

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

## VI. Response to Comments Rece ived on the Proposed Actions

List of Comment Letters Received

We received six comment letters in respons e to our July 14, 2009 proposal (74 FR 33933) and two comments letters in response to our October 2, 2009, supplemental proposal (74 FR 50936) on contingency measures. Commenters were:

1. [CRPE or the Center] Brent Newell, Le gal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 31, 2009, “Comments on A pproval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA-R09- OAR-2008-0693).” These comments were joined by Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents; Sal Partida, Co- Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Adriano Martinez, Natural Resources Defense Council; Gary Rodri guez, South Shafter Project Committee; Jesus Jaime, President, Shafter Chapter League of United Latin American Citizens; Renee Nelson, President, Clean Water and Air Matter; Franci sco Martines, Comité Unido de Plainview; Guadalupe Nunez; La Voz de Tonyville; Irma Medellin, El Quinto Sol de America; Saul Morales, La Neuva Esperanza de Alpaugh; Lucy Hernandez, Comité West Goshen; Eunice Martinez, United for a Change in Tooleville; Lisa Kayser-Grant, Moms Clean Air Network; Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organiza dos al Servicio del Ambiente Sano; and Sarah Sharpe, Environmenta l Health Director, Fresno Metro Ministries.

2. [CRPE or the Center] Johannes Epke, Le gal Intern, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 31, 2009, “Comments on Revisi ons to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Cont rol District (Docke t No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009- 0492); Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693).” These comments were joined by Brent Newell, Le gal Director, Center fo r Race, Poverty & the Environment; Sal Partida, Co-Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents; Gary Rodr iguez, South Shafter Project Committee; Jesus Jaime, President, Shafter Chapter League of United Latin American Citizens; Francisco Martines, Comité Unido de Plainview; Guadalupe Nunez; La Voz de Tonyville; Irma Medellin, El Quinto Sol de America; Saul Morales, La Neuva Esperanza de Alpaugh; Lucy Hernandez, Comité West Goshen; Eunice Martinez, United fo r a Change in Tooleville; Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano; and Sarah Sharpe, Environmental Health Di rector, Fresno Me tro Ministries.

3. [CRPE or the Center] Johannes Epke, Le gal Intern, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, August 31, 2009, “Comments on EP A Proposed Approval of California RFG and Diesel Fuel Regulations (D ocket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0344) ; Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693).” These comments were joined by Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center for Race, Pove rty & the Environment; Sal Partida, Co-Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents; Gary Rodriguez, South Shafter Project Committee; Jesus Jaime, President, Shafter Chapter League ofTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 83

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### United Latin American Citizens; Francisco Mart ines, Comité Unido de Plainview; Guadalupe Nunez; La Voz de Tonyville; Irma Medellin, El Qu into Sol de America; Saul Morales, La Neuva Esperanza de Alpaugh; Lucy Hernandez, Comité West Goshen; Eunice Martinez, United for a Change in Tooleville; and Maria Covarruvias , Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano.

4. [Earthjustice]. Paul Cort, Staff Attorn ey, and Sarah Jackson, Research Associate, Earthjustice, August 31, 2009, “Proposed Approval of the 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for the San Joaquin Valley. 74 Fed. Reg. 33933 (July 14, 2009) (Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2008- 0693).” Comments are submitted on behalf of Medi cal Advocates for Healthy Air, Fresno Metro Ministries, and the Coalition for Clean Air.

5. [SJVAPCD]. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Di rector/Air Pollution C ontrol Officer, August 27, 2009, “Comments on Docket Numbers EP A-R09-OAR-2009-0492, EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693,
and EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0475”

6. [ARB]. James N. Goldstene, Execu tive Officer, Air Resources Board, August 28, 2009.

7. [CRPE or the Center] Brent Newell, Le gal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment, November 2, 2009, Comments on A pproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Contingency M easures for the San Joaquin Valley, CA (Docket No. EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693).” Thes e comments were joined by Tom Frantz, President, Association of Irritated Residents; Sal Partida, Co- Chair, Committee for a Better Arvin; Adriano Martinez, Natural Resources Defense Council; Gary Rodriguez, South Shafter Project Committee; Jesus Jaime, President, Shafter Chap ter League of United Latin American Citizens; Renee Nelson, President, Clean Water and Air Matter; Francisco Martines, Comité Unido de Plainview; Guadalupe Nunez; La Voz de Tonyville; Irma Medellin, El Quinto Sol de America; Saul Morales, La Neuva Esperanza de Alpaugh; Lucy Hernandez, Comité West Goshen; Eunice Martinez, United for a Change in Tooleville; Li sa Kayser-Grant, Moms Clean Air Network and Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organiza dos al Servicio del
Ambiente Sano.

8. [Earthjustice] Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, a nd Sarah Jackson, Research Associate, Earthjustice, November 2, 2009, “Proposed Approval of 1-Hour Ozone Contingency Measures for the San Joaquin Valley. 74 Fed. Reg. 50936 (Oct. 2, 2009) (Docket ID # EPA- R09-OAR-2008-0693).”
Comments are submitted on behalf of Fresno Metro Ministries.

A. Emissions Inventory

Comment: Earthjustice comments on the importance of emission inventories, noting that CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that nonattainment plans “shall include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sour ces of the relevant pollu tant or pollutants in
such area.”Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 84

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### Response: EPA does not dispute the importance of em ission inventories. We evaluated the emission inventories in the 2004 SIP to determine if they are consistent with EPA guidance (General Preamble at 13502 15 

### ) and adequate to su pport that plan’s rate -of-progress (ROP) and
attainment demonstrations. We determined that the plan’s 2000 base year emission inventory was comprehensive, accurate, and current at the time it was submitted on November 15, 2004 and that this inventory, as we ll as the 2008 and 2010 projected inve ntories used in the ROP and attainment demonstrations, were prepared in a manner consistent with EPA guidance. Accordingly, we proposed to find that these inve ntories provide an approp riate basis for the ROP
and attainment demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. See 74 FR at 33940.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that ARB submitte d to EPA new emissions inventories for ozone precursors in the San Joaquin Va lley as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan 16 

### for the 8-hour ozone standard and that these updated invent ories are “significantly different” than the
inventories in the 2004 SIP. It further comments that the increase in emissions comes mainly from changes to the way the State’s on-road mobile source model, EMFAC, determines the
distribution of vehicle miles traveled by heavy heavy-duty di esel trucks (HHDDT) throughout the State. Finally, it argues that these impr ovements to EMFAC, and therefore, to the SJV emissions inventory overall, make the 2007 Ozone Plan inventory the most comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources affecting th e Valley’s air quality
and EPA cannot refuse to consider it.

Response: ARB used its mobile source emissions model EMFAC2002 to generate the on-road mobile source inventory in the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan. ARB released EMFAC2002 in October, 2002 and EPA approved it for use in SI Ps and conformity determinations on April 1, 2003 (62 FR 15720). At the time the 2004 SIP wa s being developed (2003-2004) and when it was subsequently adopted by SJVAPCD and s ubmitted by ARB to EPA, EMFAC2002 was the
most current mobile source model availa ble for inventory purposes. 74 FR at 33940.

It has been EPA’s consistent policy that States must use th e most current mobile source model available at the time it is developing it s SIP. See General Preamble at 13503 (requiring
the use of MOBILE4.1 17 

### for November, 1992 submittal of base year inventories); Office of Mobile Sources, EPA, “Procedures for Emissions Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Source,” June, 1992, page 5 (allowing states to us e MOBILE4.1 for the base year inventories due November 1992, but requiring MOBILE5, then scheduled for release in December 1992, for the ROP and attainment demonstrations due November 1993); Memorandum , Philip A. Lorang, Director, Assessment and Modeli ng Division, Office of Mobile Sources, “Release of MOBILE5a Emission Factor Model,” March 29, 1993 (allowin g the use of MOBILE5 in updated base year inventories but requiring th e use of MOBILE5a, released March 1993, for the ROP and

15 The General Preamble is the "General Preamble for Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990." 57 FR 13498, 13502 (April 16, 1992).

16 SJVAPCD, “2007 Ozone Plan,” April 30, 2007.

17 MOBILE is EPA’s model for estimating pollution from highway vehicles in all states except California where EMFAC is used. For a brief history of th e MOBILE model, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ mob_hist.txt.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 85

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### attainment demonstrations due November 1993) ; and Memorandum , John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and Ma rgo Oge, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBI LE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity,” January 18 , 2002 (Seitz Memo).

The Seitz Memo specifically addresses the i ssue of how the release of the new model, MOBILE6, would affect SIPs that were already submitted and/or approved or SIPs that were then under development. Citing CAA section 17 2(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.112(a)(1), EPA stated in the Seitz Memo that, “while [i]n general, EP A believes that MOBILE6 should be used in SIP development as expeditiously as possible....[t]he Clean Air Act requires that SIP inventories and control measures be based on the most current information and applicable models that are available when a SIP is developed. As a result, the release of MOBILE6 in most areas would not require a SIP revision based on the new model. ” The Seitz Memo further states that:

EPA believes that the Clean Air Act would not require states that have already submitted SIPs or will submit SIPs shortly after MOBILE6's release to revise these SIPs simply because a new motor vehicle emissions model is now available. EPA believes that this is supported by existing EPA policies and case law [ Delaney v. EPA , 898 F.2d 687 (9th Cir. 1990)].... EP A does not believe that the
State’s use of MOBILE5 should be an obs tacle to EPA approval for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenan ce SIPs that have be en or will soon be submitted based on MOBILE5, assuming that such SIPs are otherwise approvable and significant SIP work has already o ccurred (e.g., attainment modeling for an attainment SIP has already been comp leted with MOBILE5). It would be unreasonable to require the States to re vise these SIPs with MOBILE6 since significant work has already occurred, and EPA intends to act on these SIPs in a timely manner.

EPA has also consistently applied this polic y in approving SIPs. See, for example, 67 FR 30574, 30582 (May 7, 2002), approval of 1-hour ozone standard attainment demonstration for Atlanta, Georgia and 68 FR 19106, 19118 a nd 19120 (April 17, 2003), approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s severe area 1-hour attainment demonstr ation. The latter action was upheld in Sierra Club v. EPA , 356 F.3d 296 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In Sierra Club at 308, the court
cites the Seitz Memo and concludes that “[t]o require states to revise completed plans every time a new model is announced would lead to significant costs and potentially endless delays in the approval processes. EPA’s decision to reject that course, and to accept the use of MOBILE5 in this case, was neither ar bitrary nor ca pricious.”

EPA follows a comparable policy when it comes to other changes to the inventory. See
General Preamble at 13508:

Emission Factor Adjustments. Emission fact ors, as well as inventory calculation methodologies are continually being improved. If emission factors or methodologies change significan tly, EPA may advise the St ate to correct the base year emissions inventory to reflect such changes. If significant changes occur inTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 86

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### emission factors or methodologies betw een [November 15, 1990] and November 15, 1993 (due date for the 15 percent demons tration), EPA may require States to make corrections to the base year emissi on inventory, as well as to the adjusted baseline and the 1996 target level of emissions. If, however, changes occur after the 15 percent demonstration is submitted but before November 15, 1996, then the
States would not have to make corrections for purposes of reconciling attainment of the 15 percent milestone.

See also, General Preamble at 13517; 66 FR 586, 614 (January 3, 2001), approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s 1-hour attainment demonstration; 66 FR 63922, 63933 (December 11, 2001), approval of Connecticut’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan; 67 FR 5152, 5166 (February 4, 2002), approval of New Jersey’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan; and 70 FR 25688, 25707 (May 13, 2005); “EPA’s Policy on Changes in Inventory Methods” in the approval of the Washington,
D.C. area’s severe area 1-hour attainment demonstration.

In keeping with the above policy, ARB and the District used the most current version of EMFAC, EMFAC2007, to prepare the most recent ozone plan for the Valley, the 2007 Ozone Plan (which addresses the 8-hour ozone standa rd). See 2007 Ozone Plan at p. B-1. EPA will review the inventory in this pl an for compliance with CAA and EPA requirements at the time it acts on the plan.

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that EPA also considers the improvements to EMFAC2007 to better reflect the air quality reality in Califor nia, quoting our January 18, 2008 notice approving
the use of the EMFAC2007.

Response: ARB did not release EMFAC2007 for use unt il November 2006, more than 2 years
after the 2004 SIP was submitted in November 2004 and more than 3 years after the District “froze” the inventory in April 2003 so it could complete work on the 2004 SIP. See 2004 SIP at p. 3-25. We believe that disapproving a plan beca use it is not based on an emissions model that was not available for use until well after the plan was prepared would be inconsistent with EPA’s long-held policy that SIPs be based on the most current mobile source model available at the time the plan is being prepared. The State and Di strict appropriately reli ed on this policy in developing, adopting and submitting the 2004 SIP.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot claim it may approve the submissions because the emissions inventory data were vali d when they were submitted in 2004 because this is not the legal test. It asserts that neither the Clean Air Act no r the Administrative Procedure Act allows EPA to ignore data before the Agency th at undermine the validity of previously submitted
data. It also asserts that the record for review did not close with the submittal of the 2004 1-hour ozone plan and that EPA must c onsider all of the information be fore it. Finally, the commenter
claims that in this case the Di strict and State have found that the emissions inventories submitted in 2004 were not accurate and significantly underestimated the NOx emissions from mobile sources in the Valley and EPA cannot approve th is 1-hour ozone strategy based on inventories that are no longer cu rrent or accurate.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 87

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### Response: We disagree with Earthjus tice regarding the legal test that applies under the Clean Air Act. As articulated in the Seitz Memo, the legal test under the CAA is that “SIP
inventories...be based on the most current informa tion and applicable models that are available when a SIP is developed.” See also Sierra Club at 308. The fact that the State subsequently submitted another plan based on updated inventor ies in the period between the submittal of and
EPA’s action on the 2004 SIP does not affect the approvability of the 2004 SIP. Updates and changes to the inventory that were made after submittal of the plan were appropriately incorporated into de velopment of the 2007 Ozone Plan; however, they do not render the 2004 SIP insufficient or unapprovable.

Because the commenter’s reference to the Admi nistrative Procedures Act is without any specificity, we cannot respond to this portion of its comment.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot clai m, as an excuse for failing to address these revised inventories, that emission inventories change and cr eate a moving target, making it unfair to require plans to change with new informa tion. It then asserts th at emissions inventories do not change constantly and that the emissi ons inventory EPA seeks to rely upon in the 2004 SIP is over five years old and has not been the subject of constant revision. It then notes that the newer inventory is only the result of new planni ng efforts for the 8-hour ozone standard that the District and State updated the inve ntories and models in 2007. Fi nally, Earthjustice asserts that had EPA acted in a timely fashion on the 2004 1-hour ozone plan, there would have been no
issue here.

Response: EPA did not claim in its proposed approval of the 2004 SIP that emission inventories change constantly. It is, howev er, a fact that inventories will change over time due to better information and improved methodologies. This is a good thing. Air quality agencies are continually collecting inventor y data, updating methodologies, improving emission factors, and otherwise striving to increase the accuracy of and decrease the uncertainties in their emission
inventories. As the District wrote in the 2004 SIP (p. 3-25):

This [plan] uses the most accurate and up to date emission inventories possible within the
time allowed to meet Federal Clean Air Ac t requirements. Many emission categories within the inventories were updated to reflect current data and emission factors. While changes and improvements to the SJVAB’s i nventories are ongoing, at some point in time the planning and modeling inventories must be “frozen” to allow plan development to proceed (i.e., the inventory must be fro zen so that potential future emission control
measures can be evaluated for their effectiv eness in attaining th e federal 1-hour ozone standard). Many emissions inventory im provement projects are in process or are planned, and the results of these and other studi es will be reflected in the inventories used
in future SIPs.

The District notes this again in the 2007 Ozone Plan in a section entitled “Emissions Inventory Updates” (A ppendix B, page 11):Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 88

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### The District, in cooperation with ARB, is committed to continually updating the emissions inventory as research, emission f actor updates, and other information become available. When emissions data change drama tically, the District is committed to revising the inventory and ensuring that any impact is reflected in the control strategy and the
attainment demonstration.

The District re-evaluates the emissions inve ntory on a regular basis to ensure that the inventory is accurate and current. Major poin t sources are typically re-evaluated every year. Area sources are scheduled to be re-evaluated every one to five years. Seventy-five area source categories were updated during the period from 2003 to 2006.

The District updates emissions growth estim ates on a periodic basis. Ten source categories are being examined in 2006 to reeval uate growth trends. The District also
revises emissions estimates based on the e ffects of District prohibitory rules on an emissions source category. Approximately sixt y-eight District prohibitory rules will be
examined in 2006 to evaluate emissions contro ls and the effect of the rule requirements on the emissions inventory. 18



### When we approved EMFAC2007, we noted that ARB was already planning to update the model in 2010: “[In its April 18, 2007 letter submitting EMFAC2007 to EPA for approval the] State reaffirmed their commitment to keeping the latest planning assumptions included in EMFAC updated on a three year cycle.... The next update to the planning assumptions in EMFAC is expected in 2010, which would most likely also include updates to the emissions factors of the model as well.” 68 FR 3464, 3467 (January 18, 2008).

Updated inventories are also required regul arly by EPA regulati ons at 40 CFR part 51, subpart A. Section 51.30 require s States to annually update a nd submit the inventory for their major stationary sources and triennially update a nd submit the entire inventory. However, as the District noted, in order to submit a plan on time, i nventories must be frozen at some point in the plan’s development, even if further inventor y improvements are on the horizon. As discussed above, EPA addresses this realit y by requiring plans to be based on the most current information available at the time the plan is being developed and submitted.

As we have also discussed previously, the Di strict and the State did use the most current
information then available to them to deve lop the 2004 SIP as required by the CAA and EPA policy. Any delay in EPA’s approval does not cha nge this fact. We do not believe, as the commenter is suggesting, that new, unanticipated information that may arise after a plan has been adopted and submitted but before EPA acts on it should affect the plan’s approvability. Again we note that California has submitted a new plan for attaining the 8-hour ozone standard

18 For example, since submitting the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District has revised its methodology for determining NOx emissions from natural gas combustion from manufacturing and industrial sources. This revised methodology has reduced NOx emissions from this category by 31.3 tpd in 2006 and 34.3 tpd in 2012. See ARB, “Accelerating San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Progress, A RB Staff Report to the Air Resources Board,” released November 6, 2007, p. 6.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 89

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


### in the SJV and that it is based on EMFAC2007.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA should not suggest that the new inventories would not make a difference in EPA’s approval of the plan, asserting that EPA has no basis in the record for making such a claim.

Response: EPA has not made and is not making such a suggestion. Any evaluation of the impact of the revised inventories on the approva bility of 2004 1-hour ozon e plan would be at best theoretical and at worst speculative. 19 

### Rather EPA is stating th at the State and District appropriately relied on the then-existing informa tion to develop the 2004 SIP. See our responses
to comments above.

In its comments, Earthjustice consistently attempts to conflate the 2004 1-hour ozone standard and 2007 8-hour ozone standard plan s. Following Earthj ustice’s logic would effectively result in the 1-hour oz one plan being completely revi sed to become the 8-hour ozone plan. This is because an eval uation of the effect of emissions inventory changes on the plan could not be limited to just thos e changes resulting from the m ove to EMFAC2007. All factors, from revised growth projections and changes to other emissions inventory categories to the impact of new controls, would need to be take n into account before we could determine whether the plan is or is not approvable. In other words, an entire new pl an would need to be developed.
The District and State ha ve already prepared a new plan th at addresses the applicable 8-hour
ozone standard and that is based on EMFAC200 7 as well as other updated information. EPA
will evaluate the revised inventories in connection with its action on that plan.

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the evidence on r ecord suggests that the new inventories do make a difference in the strategy that must be pursued to reduce ozone concentrations. It goes on to say that modeling predicts that the strategy must get significantly more NOx emission
reductions in order to make a difference in ozone concentrations. As its evidence, Earthjustice includes two carrying capacity isopleth diagrams, one from the 2004 SIP and one from the 2007 Ozone Plan, which they claim de monstrate a “radical” change in the predicted relationship
between NOx and VOC reductions and the resulting ozone concen trations from the 2004 SIP to the 2007 Ozone Plan. Finally, Earthjustice provides a quote from the 2007 Ozone Plan that attainment at Arvin can only be achieved thr ough reductions in NOx reductions and that VOC reductions do not help and concludes with give n this new understandi ng of the relationship between NOx and VOC reductions in addressing ozone, the emission reduction targets of the 1-

19 Ozone is formed in the atmosphere a through complex series of photochemical reactions between VOC and NOx. In these reactions, NOx plays a role both in creating and destroying ozone. See Seinfeld, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2006 p. 209. Because of this dual role, increased NOx emissions do not always lead to
increased ozone levels and decreased NOx emissions do not always lead to decreased ozone levels. Under some conditions, decreased NOx emissions may increase ozone conc entrations. This information demonstrates that we cannot simply presume that higher NOx emissions levels a dversely affect the attainment demonstration in the 2004 1-hour ozone plan and disapprove it on that basis. We note that District and the State have performed air quality modeling to evaluate the revised inventory’s effect on ozone levels in the Valley and this modeling forms the basis of the attainment demonstration for the applicable 8-hour ozone standard in the 2007 Ozone Plan. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Chapter 3 and Appendix F.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 90

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### hour ozone plan w ould be different.

Response: As stated previously, th e 2007 Ozone Plan is not the subject of this rulemaking. Assuming a change in the predic ted relationship between NOx a nd VOC reductions and resulting ozone concentrations exists, as Earthjustice suggests, EPA will evaluate in the context of a rulemaking on the 2007 plan.

Nonetheless, EPA notes that the two diagra ms the commenter compares in support of its contentions are not comparable . The first diagram comes from the 2004 SIP and shows the carrying capacity for the 1-hour ozone standard at Bakersfiel d in 2010. This diagram has isopleths in 5 ppb increments from 95 ppb to 130 ppb (the 1-hour ozone sta ndard is at 124 ppb). The second diagram comes from the 2007 Ozone Pl an and shows the carrying capacity for the 8- hour ozone standard at Arvin in 2020. This diag ram has isopleths in 1 ppb increments from 80 to 97 ppb (the 8-hour ozone standard is at 85 ppb). However there is little overlap between the two diagrams. The Bakersfield diagram has only one complete isopleth (95 ppb) that is also on the Arvin diagram. 20 

### Finally, the quote which the comment er provides describes the required strategy for attaining the more stringent 8-hour ozone standard and not the revoked 1-hour ozone
standard.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot use as a reason to approve the 2004 SIP that redoing the inventories would dela y approval and that this cannot be the basis for approving a plan that Earthjustice asserts does not meet th e requirements of the Act and will not work. Stating that the objective of the Clean Air Act is to protect pu blic health by ensuring that polluted areas have a strategy that will attain the national ambient air quality standards, the commenter argues that this purpos e is not served by approving a plan that does not lead to attainment of the standards and doing so w ould only result in more delay. Finally, the commenter argues that EPA should not wait until the plan fails to achieve attainment to require a new plan because it would be “faster for EPA to ge t this plan fixed now, ra ther than waiting for it to fail before taking the needed steps to address its defects.”

Response: EPA has not argued that redoing the inventory would delay approval of the 2004 1- hour ozone plan. We have found that the plan is approvable with the exis ting inventory and thus it and the plan that it is a part of do not need to be redone. As we discuss below in our responses to comments on the attainment demonstration, it is premature to conclu de that the 2004 1-hour ozone plan has failed and that the area will inevitably not attain the revoked 1-hour ozone standard by its ultimate app licable attainment date.

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA has not qua ntified the emission reductions from
California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (“waiver measures”)

20 We also note that the inventory underlying the Arvin diagram is less than one underlying the Bakersfield diagram and that it has the more VOC emissions than NOx emissions. The Arvin diagram is based on an inventory of 308 tpd VOC and 302 tpd of NOx. 2007 Ozone Plan, p. 3-8. The Bakersfield diagram is based on an inventory of approximately 370 tpd VOC and 400 tpd NOx. 2004 SIP, p. 5-11.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 91

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


### waiver measures used in the attainment dem onstration, rate of progr ess demonstration, or contingency measures.

Response: In the 2004 1-hour ozone plan, all emission reductions from waiver measures are in the baseline inventory. This baseline inventory is the projected level of emissions that will occur in the SJV area assuming only growth and the eff ect of controls that were adopted prior to September, 2002. 2004 SIP, p. 3-11. Because plans are focused on future controls and not already adopted controls, reductions from each i ndividual control measure in the baseline are not usually identified. As discussed above, we believe that reductions from waiver measures, just as those from SIP-approved rules, are fully creditable in attainment demonstrations, rate of progress demonstrations and may be used for contingenc y measures. We, therefore, do not need to separately account for th eir emission reductions.

Comment: CRPE comments that because the 2004 SIP includes reductions from waiver measures that occurred before 2000 as part of the 2000 base year inventory, EPA’s proposed approval of the inventory violates CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) because EPA has failed to find that the reductions from the waiver measures have occurred, are enforceable, or are otherwise consistent with the Act, EPA’s impl ementing regulations, and the General Preamble.

Response: We evaluated the emission inventories in the 2004 SIP to determine if they were consistent with EPA guidance (General Preamble at 13502) and adequate to support that plan’s
ROP and attainment demonstrations. 74 FR at 33940. Based on this evaluation, we proposed to find that the base year inventory (and the projected baseline inve ntories derived from it) provided an appropriate basis for the ROP and attainment demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. 74 FR at
33940.

We also reviewed the District and State ru les that were relied on for emissions reductions in the 2004 SIP’s base year and ba seline inventories. We determin ed that all these rules were creditable under the CAA and our policies. See S ections III and IV of this TSD. For the reasons given in the proposal at 33938-33939 and discussed in our respons es to comments on waiver measures, we believe that California’s mobile source measures are fully creditable for SIP

purposes.

As to emission reductions from waiver m easures actually occurring, we assume that sources comply with applicable emission limitati ons and the agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with them are exercising appropriate ove rsight, absent information to the contrary. The commenter provides no information indi cating either of these is not happening.

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures (R ACM) and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

Introduction

CAA section 172(c)(1) requi res nonattainment area plan s to “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available contro l measures [RACM] (inc luding such reductionsTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 92

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### in emissions from existing sour ces in the area as may be obtai ned through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control techno logy [RACT]) and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality stan dards.” Under our 8-hour ozone implementation rule, RACM is not listed separa tely in 40 CFR 51.900(f) as an applicable requirement following revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard; however, EPA interprets the RACM requirement to be a component of an area’s attainment demonstrat ion and thus it continues to apply. See General
Preamble at 13560.

For 30 years, EPA has consistently interpreted the Act’s RACM provision in section 172(c)(1) to require only those feasible meas ures necessary for expeditious attainment. 21 

### Under EPA’s interpretation, if an othe rwise feasible measure, alone or in combination with other measures, cannot expedite attainment then it is no t considered to be reason ably available. Thus, to show that it had implemented RACM, a state need s to show that it considered a wide range of potential measures and found none that were feas ible for the area and th at would, alone or in combination with other feasible measures, a dvance attainment. See 1999 RACM Guidance.
Based on the form of the 1-hour ozone standard and the Act’s specific language on RACM, the appropriate standard for advanci ng attainment is, at a minimum, one year from the predicted attainment date in the attainment plan. 22 

### This approach to RACM ha s been applied in numerous rulemakings. See, for example, 56 FR 5458 (F ebruary 11, 1991), promulgation of a federal implementation plan for Phoenix, Arizona; 66 FR 586, 607, 610 (January 3, 2001), approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s 1-hour attainment demonstration; 66 FR 63921, 63930 (December 11, 2001), approval of Connecticut’s 1-hour oz one attainment demonstration; 67 FR 30574, 30583 (May 7, 2002), approval of Atla nta’s 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration; and 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001), approval of the H ouston/Galveston 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. It has also been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F. 3d 735, 743–745 (5 th 

### Cir. 2002)) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ( Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F. 3d 155, 162–163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

CAA Section 182(b)(2) requires states to a dopt RACT for major VOC sources and for all VOC source categories for which EPA has i ssued Control Techni ques Guideline (CTG)

21 We initially stated our interpretation of the RACM requirement in our 1979 nonattainment area plan guidance where we indicated that if a measure which might be available for implementation could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for attainment in the area, we would not consider it reasonably available. See 44 FR 20372, 20375 (April 4, 1979). We affirmed this interpretation in the 1992 General Preamble at 13560; in Memorandum , John Seitz, Director, OAQPS, “Guidanc e on the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” November 30, 1999 (1999 RACM Guidance); in the 2005 8-hour implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71659 (November 29, 2005) and § 51.912(d)); and in the 2007 PM2.5 implementation rule (72 FR 20586, 20612 (April 25, 2007) and § 51.1010.

22 Attainment of the 1-hour standard is based on the average of the most recent three calendar years of data: “The [1-hour ozone] standard is attained when th e expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentra tions above 0.12 parts per million [ ] is equal to or less than 1.” 40 CFR 50.9(a). Because of this, attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard can only be advanced by intervals of one full year. Section 172(c)(1) requires RACM sufficient to provide for expeditious attainment; thus, what constitutes RACM for the 1- hour ozone standard must be determined based on what reductions are needed to advance attainment by one year.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 93

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### documents. CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT also apply to major stationary sources of NOx. In extreme areas, a major source is a stationa ry source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons of VOC or NOx per year. CAA sec tion 182(e). The RACT requirement in section 182(b)(2), the major source threshol d in section 182(e) as it applies to RACT , and the application of RACT to major sources of NOx as they appl y for the 1-hour standa rd were retained as “applicable requirements” under the Phase 1 ru le. §51.905(a)(1)(i) and §51.900(f)(1), (3) and (12).

We described the RACM analysis in the 2004 SIP in the proposal (74 FR at 33935). We also discussed the section 182(b )(2) RACT provision in the 2004 SIP, stating that the State had formally withdrawn it and that we had subseque ntly made a finding of failure to submit the
RACT demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and in itiated sanction and federal implementation plan (FIP) clocks under CAA sections 179(a) and 110(c). See 74 FR at 33935 and 74 FR 3442 (January 21, 2009). Finally, we not ed that California had recently submitted the
District’s revised 8-hour ozone standard RACT plan (adopted April 16, 2009) (8-hour RACT SIP), that the plan is intended in part to correct the failure to submit finding for the 1-hour ozone standard RACT requirement as well, and that we are currently reviewing the revised RACT plan for action in a subsequent rulemaking. See 74 FR at 33935.

Based on our review of the RACM analyses in the 2004 SIP as well as an evaluation of the impact of applying RACT to sources for wh ich we had not already approved a RACT rule, we proposed to find that ther e are no additional reasonably av ailable measures that would
advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV area. As a consequence of this proposed finding, we also proposed to find that the 2004 1-hour ozone plan provides for the implementation of RACM as requ ired by CAA section 172(c)(1).

We estimated that it would take an add itional reduction of from 3.7 to 6.4 tpd VOC and 13.7 to 17.4 tpd NOx to advance attainment by one year (i.e., to 2009) from the 2004 SIP’s projected attainment date of 2010. 23 

### See 74 FR at 33938. We determined that no reasonably available unadopted measures identified in 2004 SIP, 2003 State Stra tegy, and 8-hour ozone RACT plan, either individually or collectively, co uld deliver this level of emissions reductions. Our analysis supporting this determination was provided in Section V of this TSD for the proposal. We also noted that the proposed finding on RACM did not affect the District’s continuing obligation under the CAA to implemen t RACT pursuant to CAA section 182(b)(2) and 40 CFR 50.905(a)(1)(ii). See 74 FR at 33938.

As discussed below, we received severa l comments on our RACM finding objecting in general to our methodology, our criteria, and our interpretation of the RA CM requirement. We did not, however, receive any comments on our analysis.

23 The 2004 SIP as submitted demonstrated that the most expeditious attainment date practicable would be 2010. Given this as a starting point, we needed to determine if the plan failed to contain any reasonable measures that would advance that date by at l east one year or in this case to 2009.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 94

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Comment: Earthjustice asserts that deferring action on the RACT demonstration is illegal and arbitrary. It further asserts that EPA cannot find that the plan as submitted will provide for attainment “as expeditiously as practicable” without first demonstr ating that all of the required controls, such as RACT, will be implemented. Finally, Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot
treat RACM and RACT as discre te requirements that can be act ed on separately because the statute clearly states th at RACM includes RACT. It also comments that EPA cannot determine
that all reasonable measures ar e in place in the Valley without fi rst evaluating RACT for all SJV

area sources.

Response : We did not defer action under CAA secti on 110(k) on the RACT demonstration in the 2004 SIP because, as a result of the State’s withdraw al of this component of the plan, there was no such demonstration on which the Agency coul d act. Instead, we took the appropriate action under the CAA which was, as stated above, to make a finding of failure to submit a required plan
element which started sanctions and FIP clocks . 74 FR 3442.

We have determined that the 2004 SIP contains all reasonably available measures needed for expeditious attainment. While any evaluation of a RACM demonstration needs to consider the potential effect of subpart 2 RACT on expediti ous attainment, it does not require that there first be an approved subpart 2 RACT demonstrati on. For this action, we evaluated the potential effect of applying RACT to those source categorie s in the SJV area for which we had not already approved a RACT rule. We provide this evaluation in Section V of this TSD. This evaluation shows that there were no outstanding RACT measur es that, either individually or in combination with other potential measures, would advance attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV
area. See Section V of this TSD and 74 FR 33938.

We agree that SJVAPCD must, adopt and implement the specific subpart 2 control requirements of the Act, but we do not agree that the withdrawal of the RACT demonstration in the 2004 SIP precludes us from approving the plan ’s RACM and attainment demonstrations
when it has been shown that the RACT measur es would not contribute to more expeditious
attainment.

Comment: Earthjustice alleges that the 8-hour ozone RACT plan recently submitted by the District suffers from significant defects and pr ovides examples of these alleged defects.

Response: We did not propose any action on the 8-hour ozone RACT plan in our July 2009 proposal on the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan. Becau se Earthjustice’s comments here address the specifics of a plan that is not the subject of this rulemaking, we need not respond to them.

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that EPA needs to r eassess those measures identified in the 2004 Plan, the 2003 State Strategy, and the District’s and State’s adopted rules and commitments for sources not subject to RACT to ensure that they are still adequate to me et RACM given that the original demonstration was done five years previously.

Response: Based on our review of the 2004 1-hour pl an, we concluded that it demonstrates attainment as expeditiously as practicable. As stated above, for this action, we evaluated theTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 95

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### potential effect of applying RACT to those sour ce categories in the SJV area for which we had not already approved a RACT rule. Our evalua tion is located in section V of this TSD.

Furthermore, in this situation, even if we we re to use current inform ation to evaluate the
RACM demonstration in the 2004 SJV 1-hour plan, it would make no difference to our
determination that the 2004 SIP provides for RACM. A fundamental criterion used to determine
if a measure is RACM is whether the measur e can be implemented in time to advance the attainment date from the plan’s predicted 2010 date to 2009. Therefore, if we were to use current information today, i.e., at the end of 2009, the answer to that question would be no for all potential measures.

Comment: Earthjustice argues that EPA’s test of wh ether implementation of additional measures
would advance attainment from 2010 to 2009 is ar bitrary and “absurd” given that it believes the area will fail to attain by 2010. It further argues that it is “disingenuous for EPA to use this impossible test” to justify the missing RACT an alysis and approve the plan as meeting the RACM requirement and EPA should instead re quire a new plan based on current, accurate
information and a new attainment date and then evaluate whether RACM has been met.

Response: We have not used the “advance attain ment test” to justify the missing RACT analysis. As stated previously, we took the appropriate statutor y course of action for dealing
with the withdrawn RACT demonstration: a fi nding of failure to submit and the starting of
sanctions and FIP clocks. 74 FR 3442. We also described above the process that we used to determine if the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan provided for the implementation of all RACM needed for expeditious attainment. This pro cess included evaluating th e potential impact of RACT on source categories for which we have not previously approved a RACT rule. See
Section V of this TSD. We determined that there were no outstanding measures, including potential RACT measures, that could provide for more expediti ous attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in the SJV area.

As we discuss below in the Attainment Demonstration section, we disagree with the commenter that the plan does not demonstrate attainment of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard by the 2010 attainment date.

C. Treatment of Waiver Measures

Comment : Earthjustice and CRPE object to our proposal to grant em issions reduction credit to
California’s mobile source contro l measures that have received a waiver of preemption under CAA section 209 without first approving them into the SIP. Both commenters argue that our reliance for this proposal on the general savings cl ause in CAA section 193 is inappropriate for
several reasons.

First, the commenters assert that CAA s ection 193 only saves those “formal rules, notices, or guidance documents” that are not incons istent with the CAA. They argue that both the CAA and EPA’s long-standing po licies and regulations require SI Ps to contain the state and
local emission limitations and control measures that are necessary for attainment and RFP and toTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 96

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### meet other CAA requirements. They assert that our position on the treatment of California’s waived measures is inconsistent with this requi rement. Earthjustice also argues that only SIP approval provides for the CAA’s enforcement ove rsight (CAA sections 179 and 304) and antibacksliding (CAA section 110( l) and 193) safeguards.

Second, the commenters argue that we cannot claim that our position was ratified by Congress because section 193 save s only regulations, standards, rules notices, orders and guidance “promulgated or issued” by the Admini strator and we have not identified documents promulgated or issued by EPA that establish our position here. Earthjustice further asserts that our interpretation has not been expressed thr ough any affirmative statements and the only statements of relevant statutory interpretati ons are contrary to our position on California’s
waived measures.

Third, Earthjustice argues that there is no au tomatic 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. Similarly, CRPE 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.

Finally, Earthjustice argues EPA’s position is inconsistent because we do require other state measures, e.g., the consumer products rule s and fuel standards, to be submitted and approved into SIPs before their em ission reductions can be credited.

Response: We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of
California mobile source rules th at 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 July 14, 2009 proposed rule, we expl ained why we believe such credit is appropriate. See pages 33938 and 33939 of the proposed rule. 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 Californi a motor vehicle control program and because amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flex ibility granted to California in order “to afford California the broadest possi ble discretion in selecting the be st means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare,” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95t h Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). In allowing California to take credit for the wa iver 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 ha s been to give SIP credit fo r waiver measures by allowing
California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California’s EMFAC motor vehicle emissions factor model as part of the baseline emissions inventory. EMFAC was also used to prepare baseline i nventory projections into the futu re, and thus the plans typically
showed a decrease in motor vehicle emissions due to the gradual replace ment of more polluting
vehicles with vehicles manufactured to meet newer, more stringent California vehicle standards.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 97

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


### 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 considerat ions. 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 historic ally by EPA in California SIP actions. 24



### In our proposed rule, we indicated that we believe that sectio n 193 of the CAA, the general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively rati fied our long-standing practice of granting credit for the California waiver ru les 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 provisi ons to most types of nonroad vehicle and engines, once again, reflectin g Congressional intent to provide California with the broadest possible discretion in selecti ng the best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public welfare. Requiring th e waiver measures to undergo SIP review in addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent w ith 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 Californi a faces in establishing and modifying such standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional inte nt. In short, we believe that Congress intended California’s mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process (i.e., the waiver process), not two.

EPA’s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval process. First, CARB adopts its emissions standards followi ng 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 fo r California standards,

24 EPA’s historical practice in allo wing 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, Califor nia 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 measur es.” The former refers to the types of measures we refer to herein as waiver measures, as well as fuel co ntent 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 revi sion states: “The following appendi ces 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).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 98

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### not two (waiver process plus SI P approval process). Moreover, just as SIP revisions are not effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB’s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are “within the scope” of a prior waiver and no new waiver is needed.

Moreover, to maintain a waiver, CARB’s rules can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate equivalence to the Federal Moto r 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 Califo rnia). Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and engine standards act as a backstop where there is a corres ponding California nonroad waiver measure. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the ex tent to which CARB can
relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standard s, 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 grow ing convergence between California and EPA
mobile source standards diminishes the differe nce in the emissions reductions reasonably attributed to the two programs a nd strengthens the role of the Fe deral program in serving as an effective backstop to the State program. In othe r words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming essentially a full backstop to the California program.

In addition, the commenters’ concerns over the potential for relaxation by the State of the waiver measures because the underlying regulations are not subject to EP A review and approval as a SIP revision are not a practical concern for th is particular plan give n that the plan’s horizon is very short term (next couple of years), and th e on-road and nonroad vehicl es that in part will
determine whether the area attains the standard are already in opera tion or in dealer showrooms. There is no practical means for the State to rela x the standards of vehicl es already manufactured,
even if the State wanted to relax the standards.

As to the concerns raised by the commenters on enforceability, we note that CARB has as long a history of enforcement of vehicle/engi ne emissions standards as EPA, and CARB’s enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA progr am. The history and rigor of CARB’s enforcement program lends assura nce 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.

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 requirement s 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 fo r California’s waiver m easures notwithstanding the fact they are not a pproved into the SIP, and correctly re flects Congressional intent to provideTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 99

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### California with the broadest pos sible discretion in the developm ent and promulgation of on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards. 25



### Comment: CRPE comments that EPA has not approved any state-adopted regulations as part of the SIP since 1997 and has only approved the in spection and maintenance program, and three
other measures from the California’s 1994 Ozone SIP: ARB’s antiperspirant and deodorant regulations, diesel fuel regulations, and reformulated gasoline regulations.

Response: EPA approved the State’s Phase II co nsumer product regulations on August 21, 1995 (60 FR 43379), aerosol coating regulations on September 13, 2005 (70 FR 53920), and 2005 and 2007 consumer product regulation revisions on N ovember 4, 2009 (74 FR 57054). We have also recently approved California’s most current reformul ated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations and inspection and maintenance pr ogram regulations. See “Appr oval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California,” Fina l Rule (California Fuels), signed December 11, 2009 and See “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California,” Final Rule (SmogCheck), signed December 11, 2009. The State submitted on October 12, 2009 the revised pesticide regulati on and commitment adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulations and withdrew the N ovember 17, 2007 submittal of the same. See
California Air Resources Board Executive Order S-09-005 “Relating to Approval of Amendments to the 2007 Ozone Plan for San Joaquin Valley to Achieve Pesticide Emission Reductions,” October 12, 2009. Except for the recently submitted revised pesticide rule, EPA has now acted on all State regulations submitted for SIP approval.

California has submitted the majority of its mobile source regulations to EPA requesting waiver of pre-emption under CAA section 209. EPA has approved many of these waiver requests. See Tables 14 and 15 of this TSD.

D. ARB Commitments

Comment : Earthjustice asserts that ARB’s commitments to reduce em issions in the SJV area by 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx by 2010 do not satisfy the first factor in EPA’s three-factor test for the approval of enforceable commitments. Th e commenter argues that the commitments do not meet the first factor, that commitments provide only a limited portion of the needed reductions,
for several reasons. The first reason is that th e commitment is not for 6.3 percent of the needed NOx reductions and 11.6 percent of the needed VOC reductions, the numbers EPA gave in the proposal, but rather 19.2 percent for NOx (41.1 tpd) and 37.7 percent for VOC (48.7 tpd)
because these were the emissions reductions in commitment form at the time the 2004 SIP was
submitted. The second reason is that the 11.6 percent commitment level for VOC is not
minimal. The final reason is that the “unenf orceable” commitments now constitute 100 percent

25 In this regard, we disagree that we are treating th e waiver measures inconsistently with other California control measures, such as consumer pro ducts and fuels rules, for the simple r eason 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., stat e and local measures that are relied upon fo r SIP purposes must be approved into the
SIP.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 100

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### of the remaining emission reductions needed. The commenter concludes that these levels are not
the limited or minimal role of commitments envisioned in the decision in BCCA Appeal Group v.
EPA , 355 F.3d 817 (5 th 

### Cir. 2003).

Response: We did not propose to approve comm itments of 41.1 tpd NOx and 48.7 tpd VOC, rather we proposed to approve and are taking final action to approve commitments of 20 tpd NOx and 15 tpd VOC. Because the District has adopted and submitted and EPA has approved rules achieving reductions of 21.1 tpd NOx and 33.3 tpd VOC, the portion of the original commitments relating to those reductions are now obsolete and approving them would serve no

purpose.

The State of Texas’ enforceable commitment for the Houston/Galveston area, the approval of which was upheld by the 5 th 

### Circuit in BCCA, represented 6 percent of the reductions
needed for attainment in the ar ea. We note that the court in BCCA did not conclude that any amount greater than 6 percent of the reductions n eeded would be unreasonable. We believe that the 6.3 percent reduction of NOx and the 11.6 pe rcent reduction of VOC, as stated in our proposal, also fit within the parameters of a “limited” amount of the reductions needed for attainment and nothing in the BCCA decision contravenes that. 26 

### See 74 FR at 33940.

The commenter’s final point merely descri bes the nature of all emissions reductions commitments submitted in support of an attainment demonstration, i.e., that they are intended to fill the gap between the level of reductions achieved from adopted rules and the level of
reductions needed for attainment. In other word s, their purpose is to provide 100 percent of the remaining reductions needed for attainment. As we explain elsewhere, ARB’s commitments are
not unenforceable.

Comment : Earthjustice also argues that ARB’s co mmitments to reduce emissions in the SJV area by 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx by 2010 do not sati sfy EPA’s second fact or for the approval of enforceable commitments, that the State is cap able of meeting its commitment. It first notes
that the Goldstene letter 27 

### shows that rules adopted thr ough 2007 have achieved all of the remaining NOx reductions needed for attainment and 3.3 tpd of the remaining 15 tpd of needed VOC reductions. The commenter then states, base d on its review of the measures listed by EPA in its proposed approval as pot ential sources of VOC emission reductions (e.g., the pesticide emission limits adopted by the California Depart ment of Pesticide Regulations) and ARB’s 2009 rulemaking schedule, that there are no State measures that can be adopted and implemented in time to provide the remaining 11.7 tpd in VOC reductions by 2010.

Response: In the Goldstene letter, ARB submitted a summary of the emissions reductions expected from a number of adopted State ru les in the SJV area by 2010. This summary is preliminary and is not intended to be a final st atement of ARB’s compliance with its emissions

26 Texas’ emission reduction commitment for Houston was 56 tpd NOx, a far greater emissions reduction than we are approving here. See 66 FR 57160, 57161 (November 14, 2001).

27 Letter, James Goldstene, Executive Office, ARB, to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, June 29, 2009 (Goldstene letter).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 101

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### reductions commitments. As a preliminary analys is, it cannot be used to determine whether the
State has not or will not meet its commitments.

The commenter assumes that the only pa th now open to the State to fulfill its commitments is the adoption of new measures. We disagree. The list of measures provided by ARB in the Goldstene letter represents a fr action of the rules a nd programs adopted and implemented by the State. See Table 9 of this TSD. ARB has not provided, nor has it been required to provide, an evaluation of the effectiv eness of its entire control program in reducing
emissions in the SJV area. Given that the St ate has preliminarily demonstrated, based on a limited set of measures, that all NOx reductions and 90 percent of the VOC reductions needed
for attainment of the revoked 1- hour standard in the SJV area have been achieved, we believe it
is reasonable to assume that the balance of th e reductions can also be achieved by the beginning
of the 2010 ozone season.

Comment: Earthjustice argues that ARB’s commitment s to reduce emissions in the SJV area by 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx by 2010 do not satisfy EPA’s third and final factor for the approval of enforceable commitments, that the commitment is for a reasonable a nd appropriate period of
time. It asserts that the State ha s less than a year to adopt and ma ke effective controls to achieve 13.3 tpd VOC by 2010 and it is not reasonable to a ssume that it will able to achieve these
reductions.

Response: ARB’s commitments, made in 2004, are to reduce emissions in the SJV area by 20 tpd NOx and 15 tpd VOC within 6 years, i.e., by 2010. It is not, as the commenter asserts, to reduce VOC emissions by 13.3 tpd between 2009 and 2010. The commenter’s argument again rests on the assumption that the on ly path now open to the State to meet its VOC commitment is to adopt new measures. As we discuss above, we do not believe this assumption is accurate. See
also 74 FR at 39940.

Comment : Earthjustice comments that EPA’s recitation of its three-factor test to assess whether an enforceable commitment is approvable skips over the initial determination of whether the
commitments are in fact enforceable. In this regard, Earthjustice cites Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission , 366 F.3d 692 (9 th 

### Cir. 2004)
and Citizens for a Better Environment v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission , 746 F.Supp. 746, 701 (N.D. Cal. 1990), [known as CBE II ], to support its contention that ARB’s commitment is an unenforceable “aspirational goal.” In addition, Earthjustice singles out El Comite Para El
Bienestar de Earlimart v. Warmerdam , 539 F.3d 1062 (9 th 

### Cir. 2008), stating that in El Comite the court explained that because an inventory in a SIP is not a “s tandard or limitation” as defined by the CAA, it was not an independently enforcea ble aspect of the SIP. Thus, Earthjustice reasons, in order to be enforceable, not only must a state’s commitment to adopt additional measures to attain emission standards be speci fic and announced in plain language, but any data or rubric that will be used to determine when and how the state will adopt those measures must be enforceable. Earthjustice further claims that EPA’s approval here allows for the same
unenforceable situation that occurred in Ventura where the State can claim, even erroneously, that changes to the inventory can substitute fo r its commitment to reduce emissions, and EPA and the public would be powerless to object.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 102

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Similarly, CRPE characterizes the 2003 State Strategy’s commitments to achieve aggregate emission reductions by the attainment year as “global tonna ge” commitments that could be interpreted as goals unenforceable by citizens under Ninth Circ uit precedent, citing Bayview

.

Response : Under CAA section 110(a )(2) (A), SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques 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 through CAA section 304(a) which provides for citizen suits to be bro ught against any person who is alleged “to be in
violation of ... an emission standard or limita tion....” “Emission standard or limitation” is defined in subsection (f) of section 304. 28 

### As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. James Busey et al ., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1 st 

### Cir. 1996):

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction ha ve largely focused on whether the particular standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific provisions of the act or specifi c provisions of an applicab le implementation plan," the Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or commitments designed to ensure complian ce 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 c itizen suit jurisdic tion. 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 prov ision cannot be used to enforce the aspirational goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enfo rce specific strategies to achieve that goal.

We describe ARB’s commitments in the 2004 SI P and the 2003 State Strategy in detail in the proposal (74 FR at 33938). In short, the State commits to achieve 20 tpd NOx and 15 tpd VOC in the SJV area by the 2010 ozone season. Wh ile the State identif ies possible control measures that it might adopt to achieve thes e emission reductions, it does not commit to adopt any specific measures. The language used in the 2004 SIP and the 2003 State Strategy to describe ARB’s commitments is consistently mandatory and unequivocal in nature, e.g.:

28 EPA can also enforce SIP commitments pursuant to CAA section 113.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 103

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### ARB commits to adopt and implement measures to achieve, at a minimum, 15 tpd ROG and 20 tpd NOx emission reductions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by the 2010
ozone season. ARB will adopt measures to achieve these reductions between 2002-2009. ARB may meet this commitment by adopting on e or more of the control measures in Table 4-3, by adopting one or more altern ative control measures, or by implementing incentive program(s), so long as the aggregate emission reduction commitment is
achieved.

(Emphasis added). 2004 SIP at section 4.7.3. See also ARB Staff Report at 29; ARB Resolution 04-29 at 5 (“The State’s contri bution includes...a previously approved commitment for 10 tpd new NOx emissions as part of the Valley 2003 pa rticulate matter SIP, and new commitments for additional reductions of 15 tpd VOC and 10 tpd NOx from new de fined State measures in the Valley in 2010”); and 2003 State Strategy at I-16, Table I-10 (“To tal Emission Reduction
Commitment from New State Measures” listed in the table as 10 tpd NOx with action dates 2002-2008). Thus, ARB’s commitments are clearly distinguishable from the aspirational goals, i.e., the SIP’s overall obj ectives, identified by the Bayview court and cited by the commenter. ARB’s commitments here are to adopt and impl ement measures that will achieve specific reductions of NOx and VOC emissions. . As such, as will be seen below, they are specific strategies designed to achiev e the SIP’s overall objectives.

Both Earthjustice and CRPE cite Bayview as support for their contention that ARB’s commitments are unenforceable aspirational goals. Bayview does not, however, provide any such support. That case involved a provision of th e 1982 Bay Area 1-hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 2, which states in pertinent part:

Support post-1983 improvements identified in tr ansit operator’s 5-year plans, after consultation with the operators adop t ridership increase target for 1983-1987.

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: Thes e emission reduction estimates are predicated on a 15% ridership increase. Th e actual target would be determined after consultation with the transit operators.

Following a table listing these estim ates, TCM 2 provided that “[r]id ership increases would come from productivity improvements....”

Ultimately the 15% ridership estimate was adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the implementing agency, as the actual target. Plaintiffs subsequently attempted to enforce the 15% ridership increase. The court found that the 15% 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 servic es, specifically through productiv ity improvements in transitTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 104

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### 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 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy are in star k contrast to the ridership target that wa s deemed unenforceable in Bayview . The language in ARB’s commitments, as stated multiple times in multip le documents, is specific and unequivocal; the intent of the commitments is clear; and the strate gy of adopting measures to achieve the required reductions is completely within ARB’s control. Furthermore, as stated previously, ARB identifies specific emission reductions that it wi ll achieve and specifies that this will be done through the adoption and implementation of measur es and also specifies the time by which these reductions will be achieved, i.e., the beginning of the 2010 ozone season.

Earthjustice also cites CBE II at 701 for the proposition that courts can only enforce “express” or “specific” strategies. However, as discussed below, there is nothing in the CBE cases that supports the commen ter’s view that ARB’s commit ments are neither express nor specific. In fact, these ca ses support our interpretation of ARB’s commitments.

Citizens for a Better Environment v. Deukmejian , 731 F.Supp.1448 (N.D. Cal. 1990),
known as CBE I , concerned in part contingency measures for the transportation sector in the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour ozone SIP. 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 , ARB and MTC argued that TCM 2 could not c onstitute an enforceable strategy because the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this argument, finding that “[w]e discer n no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency measures are not provided. Thus we hold th at that the basic commitment to adopt and implement additional measures, should the iden tified conditions occur, constitutes a specific strategy, fully enforceable in a citizens action, al though the exact contours of those measures are not spelled out.” Id . at 1457. 29 

### In concluding that the tran sportation and stationary source contingency provisions were en forceable, the court stated: “T hus, 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 spec ific strategies committed to
in the Plan.” Id . at 1454.

Earthjustice’s reliance on CBE II is misplaced. It also invol ves in part the contingency measures in the 1982 Bay Area Plan. In CBE II , defendants argued that RFP and the NAAQS are coincident because, had the plan’s projections been accurate, then achieving RFP would have resulted in attainment of the NAAQS. The c ourt rejected this argument, stating that:

29 In this passage, the court was referring specifically to the stationary source contingency measures in the Bay Area plan which contained a commitment to adopt such measures if emission targets were not met. The Plan identified a number of potential stationary sources but did not commit to any particular one. In discussing the transportation contingency measures, th e court applied this same reasoning. Id . at 1456-1457.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 105

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### the Court would be enforcing the contingency plan , an express strategy for attaining NAAQS. Although enforcement of this strategy might possibly result in attainment, it is distinct from simply orderi ng that NAAQS be achieved wit hout anchoring that order on any specified strategy. Plainly, the fact that a specified st rategy might be successful and
lead to attainment does not re nder that strategy unenforceable.

(Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980.

ARB’s commitments here are analogous to th e terms of the contingency measures in the
CBE cases. ARB commits to adopt measures, which are not specifically identified, to achieve a specific tonnage of emission reductions. Thus, th e commitment to a specific tonnage reduction is comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific amount of emission 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 commitment must be clear in te rms of what is required, e.g., a specified amount
of emission reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progr ess (i.e., RFP). ARB’s commitments are thus clearly a specific enfor ceable strategy rather th an an unenforceable aspirational goal.

Earthjustice’s reliance on El Comite is also misplaced. The plaintiffs in the district court attempted to enforce a provision of the 1994 Calif ornia 1-hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide
Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an in ventory 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 pesticid al 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). ARB subsequently employed a di fferent methodology which it deemed more accurate to calculate the baseline inventory. The plaintiffs sought to enforce the commitment to use the original methodology, claiming that the ca lculation of the baseline inventory constitutes
an “emission standard or limitation. ” The district court disagreed:

By its own terms, the baseline identifies em ission 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 we re designed to reduce emissions.” Id

.

On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argum ent 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 Ni nth Circuit agreed with the district court’sTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 106

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### conclusion that the baseline inventory was not an emission standard or limitation and rejected plaintiffs’ arguments attempting “to transform the baseline in ventory into an enforceable emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt regulations, if necessary.” Id . at 1073.

While Earthjustice cites the Ninth Circuit’s El Comite opinion, its util ity in analyzing
ARB’s commitments here is limited to that court’s agreement with the district court’s conclusion that neither the baseline nor the methodology qualifie s as an independently enforceable aspect of the SIP. Rather, it is the district court’s opini on, in distinguishing the commitments in CBE and Bayview , that provides insight into th e situation at issue in our action. As th e court recognized, a baseline inventory or th e methodology used to calculate it, is not a measure to reduce emissions.
It instead “identifies emission so urces and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to those sources.” In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy, ARB commits to adopt and implement measures suffici ent to achieve specifie d emission reductions by a date certain. As described above, a number of courts have found commitments substantially
similar to ARB’s here to be en forceable under CAA section 304(a).

Finally, EPA is not responding to Earthjusti ce’s comment regarding Ventura because the comment is without sufficient specificity fo r us to know to what the comment refers. Nevertheless, we note that nothing precludes the St ate from submitting a SIP revision to alter the commitments approved by EPA, just as the State may choose to submit a revision to any provision of an approved SIP. If the State does so, commenters would have an opportunity to object to such a revision at the State and local levels during the notice-an d-hearing processes for SIP adoption and would again have an opportuni ty to raise concerns during EPA’s review process. However, unless and until such time as the State submits a nd EPA approves a revision to the commitments approved in this action, those commitments remain enforceable.

Comment : Earthjustice states that the 2004 SIP suggests that the State “ may meet its commitment by adopting one or more of the control measures in Table 4-3...one or more alternative measures, or...incentive programs, so long as the aggregate emission reduction
commitment is achieved.” 2004 Plan at 4-55. Eart hjustice claims that these commitments are so vague that they cannot possibly be enforced agai nst the State; because there is no requirement
that the State take any specific actions, its commitments can not be considered enforceable under Ninth Circuit case law. This is because they are not specific strategies based on emissions
standards or limitations.

Response : We disagree. As stated in responses to previous comme nts, EPA believes that ARB’s commitments to adopt and implement control me asures to achieve th e specified aggregate tonnage by the beginning of the 2010 ozone season are enforceable as an emission standard or
limitation under CAA section 304. The fact that the State may meet its SIP obligation by adopting measures that are not specifically iden tified in the SIP, or through one of several available techniques, does not render the requirement to achieve the aggregate emission
reductions unenforceable.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 107

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Comment: Earthjustice states CAA sections 110(a) and 172(c)(6) require SIPs to contain “enforceable emission limitations...as may be nece ssary or appropriate” to achieve attainment. Earthjustice further states that , while CAA section 110(k)(4) allows EPA to grant “conditional approval” of a SIP lacking certain statutory elements “based on a commitment of the state to adopt specific enforceable measures” by a date certain, the statute provides that the conditional approval automatically becomes a disapproval if the state fails to comply with the commitment within one year. Earthjustice then claims that EPA here appears to be trying to avoid this limitation by treating open-ended promises of th e State to reduce emissions as enforceable commitments even though the State has neve r specified exactly wh at it commits to do. Earthjustice states that courts have rejected similar attempts to circumvent the statute’s limitations on conditional approvals. To s upport this contention, Earthjustice cites Sierra Club v.
EPA , 356 F.3d 295, 298 (D.C. Cir. 2004) as overturni ng EPA’s conditional approval of SIPs based in part on the fact that the commitment s identified no specific measures that the state would implement.

Response : As pertinent to the comment, Sierra Club involved EPA’s conditional approval under section 110(k)(4) of SIPs lack ing in their entirety RACM and ROP demonstrations and contingency measures based on letters submitted by states that committed to cure these deficiencies. The court rejected EPA’s construction of section 110(k)(4) as contrary to the unambiguous statutory language requir ing the state to commit to adopt specific enforceable

measures. Sierra Club at 302. The court found that EPA’s construction turn ed the section 110(k)(4) conditional approval into a means of circumventing SIP deadlines. Id . at 303.

EPA does not dispute the holding of Sierra Club . However that case is not germane to EPA’s approval of ARB’s commitments here because the Agency is not approving those commitment under section 110(k)(4). The relevant precedent is instead BCCA. The facts in
BCCA were very similar to those presented here. In BCCA , EPA approved an enforceable commitment in the Houston ozone SIP to adopt and implement unspecified NOx controls on a fixed schedule to achieve aggregate emission re ductions. Petitioners claimed that EPA lacked authority under the CAA to approve a SIP cont aining an enforceable commitment to adopt unspecified control measures in the future. Th e court disagreed and f ound that section 110(k)(4) conditional approvals do not supplant EPA' s practice of fully approving enforceable
commitments:

Nothing in the CAA speaks directly to enforceable commitments. The CAA does, however, provide EPA with great flexibility in approving SIPs. A SIP may contain "enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate" to meet the CAA's requirements.... Thus, according to the plain language of the statute, SIPs may contain "means," "techniques" and/or "schedules and timetables for compliance" that the EPA considers "appropriate" for attainment so long as they are "enforceable." See id

. § 7410(a)(2)(A)

. "Schedules and timetables" is broadly defi ned as "a schedule of required measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with an emission limitation, prohibition or standard." 42 U.S.C. § 7602(p) . TheTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 108

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### remaining terms are not defined by the Act. Because the statute is silent on the issue of whether enforceable commitments are appropriate means, techniques, or schedules for attainment, EPA's inte rpretation allowing limited use of an
enforceable commitment in the Houst on SIP must be upheld if reasonable.

BCCA at 839-840. The court upheld EPA’s approval of the commitment, finding that “EPA reasonably concluded that an enforceable commitm ent to adopt additional control measures on a fixed schedule was an ‘appropria te’ means, technique, or schedul e or timetable for compliance” under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). Id . at 841. Thus the court recognized that sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) provide a basis for EPA to approve enforceable commitments as distinct from the commitments contempl ated by section 110(k)(4). See also Environmental Defense v. EPA , 369 F.3d 193, 209-210 (2nd Cir. 2004). As a re sult, contrary to Earthjustice’s contention, section 110(k)(4) is not a bar to EP A’s approval of ARB’s enforceable commitments and that approval under section 110( k)(3) is permissible as an a ppropriate means, technique or schedule or timetable for compliance unde r sections 110(a)(2)( A) and 172(c)(6).

Comment : CRPE contends that the State’s aggregat e tonnage commitment is unenforceable as a practical matter. CRPE then states that enfo rcement of such a global commitment to adopt unidentified measures (e.g., State Strategy at II-A-13, 15, 16 and II-B-15, 23) to be implemented in the Valley by 2010 is extremely difficult given the open-ended commitment to adopt unspecified strategies. CRPE states that citizen s cannot enforce vague control measures that do not commit ARB to any particular regulations by 2008 and citizens are left with enforcing the global tonnage amounts after 2010.

Response : CRPE does not explain why it believes that ARB’s commitments are unenforceable. CRPE implies that it would be easier and/or more convenient for citizens to enforce a different type of commitment. Even assuming CRPE is corre ct, this does not equate to unenforceablity. Moreover, as seen above, the commitment in TCM 2, which the court found to be enforceable in Bayview, is directly analogous to ARB’s commitme nts in the 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy. Thus, we do not agree that the commitments are unenforceable.

Comment : CRPE claims that all of the comm itments in the 2003 State Strategy are unenforceable because they include promises by ARB staff to bring an unidentified measure to the ARB Board (State Strategy at II-A-13, 15, 16 and II-B-15, 23) and there is no commitment by the Board itself to adopt a particular stra tegy to achieve specific reductions by a specific implementation date. CRPE believes that the act of proposing a strategy to the Board is not a commitment to adopt a strategy and, citi ng 74 FR at 33938, that EPA recognizes this
fundamental defect.

Response : The enforceable commitments in the 2004 SIP and the 2003 Strategy at issue here, as described above and in the proposal at 33938, do not refer to action by ARB staff to take certain measures to the Board. Rather, as described in detail above, the enforceable commitments at
issue refer to “ARB” and/or “t he State” and require it to adop t and implement measures to achieve specific reductions in NOx and VOC emissions by the beginning of the 2010 ozoneTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 109

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### season. By adopting both the 2004 Plan and 2003 St ate Strategy, the Board endorsed the content
of these documents and committed the Board to take the actions mandated in them.

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA has rejected the kind of flexibility that ARB seeks now to adopt measures to achieve aggregate tonnages, quoting from our approva l of the 1994 California Ozone SIP at 62 FR 1150, 1158 (January 8, 1997):

The California Environmental Prot ection Agency (CEPA) commented that, as EPA recognized in the proposed a pproval, some of California’s specific strategies may require adjustment as actua l rules are developed. CEPA state that ‘we will retain the flexibility to revise the SIP as long as the emission reductions continue to provide for attainment.’

As stated in the [notice of proposed rulemaking], EPA supports the State’s flexibility to revise the SIP, but cautions that EPA must review SIP revisions for approvability under [CAA] Sections 110(l) and 193.

Response: EPA’s response to CEPA’s comment on th e 1994 California ozone SIP dealt with the State’s ability to re vise its commitments after those commitments have been approved into the SIP. As with any approved SIP provision whether commitment or rule, a state may propose to revise it, but EPA may approve th at revision only if the revisi on complies with all applicable CAA requirements. Those requirements include section 110(l) which provides that EPA cannot approve the revision if it interferes with any applicable re quirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other appli cable requirement of the CAA. See also CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 193. These same limitations will apply to ARB’s commitments in the SJV 2004 1-hour plan because those commitments ar e approved into the SIP by this action.

Comment : Earthjustice claims that the 2004 Plan si mply states that ARB “estimates” that measures in the 2003 State Strategy will achieve 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx reductions, noting that the Strategy was adopted before the Plan and therefore doesn’t me ntion the quantitative commitments (State Strategy at ES-12, 1-7 th rough 1-9, 1-23 through 1-26). Earthjustice
concludes that this es timate was clearly wrong, as the Stat e admits it is coming up short.

Response : The 2004 Plan at section 4.7.1 states that “ARB staff estimates that the near-term measures in the Statewide Strategy will provide 15 tpd ROG and 20 tpd NOx in the San Joaquin Valley in 2010.” The near-term measures in th e 2003 State Strategy are reproduced as Table 4-3
in the 2004 Plan. Because the State’s enforceable commitments are to achieve, independent of any estimates in the plan, aggregate emission reductions from one or more of the control measures in Table 4-3, by adopting one or more alternative control measures, or by implementing incentive programs, it was not necessa ry for the State to quantify the measures in
Table 4-3

To the extent that Earthjustice in this co mment intends to argue that the 5 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx in ARB’s commitments are merely estimates and therefore do not constitute enforceable obligations, we disagree for the reason s stated in our responses to comments above.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 110

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### E. Rate of Progress Demonstration

Comment: Earthjustice comments that an outdated inventory adversely affects the rate of progress (ROP) demonstrations in the 2004 SIP becau se it underestimates total NOx emissions in the Valley and thus the tons of reductions re quired to satisfy ROP are also underestimated. Earthjustice argues that EPA must reevalua te whether the 2004 SIP satisfies the ROP requirement based on the revised inventories.

Response: As discussed above, EPA’s long-establis hed and consistent policy does not require states to revise their already-submitted SIPs when a new mobile source emission model is released. This policy also means that EPA will not evaluate these SIPs based on the new model. Again, we note that EMFAC2007 was released in November 2006 and was not approved by EPA until January 2008. 68 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008), two years after the SIP was submitted and more than two-thirds of the way through the first ROP period in the plan (i.e., 2006-2008)

Comment: Earthjustice asserts that the method used in the 2004 SIP to demonstrate ROP is not allowed by CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) because the plan allows for the averaging of reductions over more than 3 years while the CAA allows aver aging over 3-year period s only. It also argues that the State’s demonstration relies on carry ing forward excess emissions reductions from previous milestone years and that this is also inconsistent with the CAA because it again allows
emissions reductions to be av eraged over longer periods than the 3-year period expressly allowed. Finally, Earthjustice claims that without carrying forward the excess emissions reductions from previous milestones, it does not appear th at the District has continued to make the required reasonable further pr ogress in reducing VOC emissions.

Response: The post-1996 ROP requirement in CAA s ection 182(c)(2)(B), while simple in concept, is among the most complex of the Act’ s nonattainment area plan requirements to apply in practice. See, for example, the General Preamble’s discussi on at 13516 on how to calculate a post-1996 ROP target. To respond to these comme nts, several points need to be understood about the ROP demonstration requirement:

1. A state demonstrates that it meets the re quired ROP by showing th at total emissions in its area will be at or below a target le vel of emissions for a specified year. 30 

### This target level of emissions, referred to as the ROP milestone, is ca lculated for each of the area’s milestone dates (e.g., 1996, 1999, 2002, etc.) according to CAA requireme nts and the procedures in the General Preamble. Each successive milestone reflects the accumulated ROP from the preceding milestone periods (e.g., 1990-1996, 1997-1999, etc.). St ates often convert this target level of

30 From the General Preamble at 135 08: “Once the 1996 target level of emissions is calculated, States must develop whatever control strategies are needed to meet that target.... The assessment of whether an area has met the RFP requirement in 1996 will be based on whether the area is at or below the 1996 target level of emissions
and not whether the area has achieved a certain actual reduction relative to ha ving maintained the current control strategy.”Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 111

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### emissions into the emissions reductions needed to show ROP by subtracting it from its baseline inventory for that milestone year. 31



### Plotted on a graph where the x-axis is th e milestone years between 1990 and an area’s attainment date and the y-axis is milestone ta rget level, the ROP m ilestones would produce a slightly concave downward line. This line establishes the maximu m level of allowable emissions for the area to meet the ROP requirement. Th e CAA’s “averaged over three years” requirement
means that the total emissions level in the area ca n rise above the line dur ing that 3-year period between milestones dates provided it is below the line by the milest one date. An example of an ROP graph can be found at 66 FR 42480, 42843 (Augus t 13, 2001), proposed approval of New York’s 2002, 2005, and 2007 ROP plans.

EPA has consistently treated ROP milestones as target levels of emissions. See for example, 61 FR 10921 (March 18, 1996), proposed a pproval of California’s ROP and attainment plans for 7 nonattainment areas; 62 FR 37175, 37177 (July 11, 1997), proposed approval of Texas’s 15 percent ROP plans for Dallas, El Paso and Houston; 65 FR 11525, 11530 (March 3, 2000), proposed approval of Illinois’ post- 1996 ROP plan for Chica go; and 70 FR 2085, 2088 (January 12, 2005), proposed approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s post-96 and post-99 ROP plans. Thus, understood as an emissions level targ et, it is clear that so long as a state can
demonstrate that total emissions levels in its ar ea are below each ROP milestone, it does not need to show an actual 9 percent emission reduction in each 3-year period. Therefore, the comment
that the manner in which California demonstrat ed ROP is not in compliance with the Act is
unfounded.

2. The commenter is incorrect that th e CAA forbids carrying forward of excess
emissions reductions. 32 

### In fact, section 182(c)(2)(C) sp ecifically provides that emission reductions beyond the 15percent required under section 182(b)(1) for the period 1990-1996 are creditable toward the ROP requirement in sectio n 182(c)(2): “The reducti ons creditable for the period beginning 6 years after November 15, 1996 shall include reductions that occurred before such period, computed in accordance with [section 182(b)(1)], that exceed the 15 percent amount of reductions required under [section 182 subsec tion (b)(1)]). (Emphasis added). While this sentence refers explicitly only to carrying fo rward excess reductions into the 1997-1999 period, we do not believe that Congress intended to prohibit carrying forwar d of excess emissions reductions into other ROP periods. Congress was interested in both expediting emissions reductions and reducing the costs of air polluti on controls. The first would be served by rewarding States for early implementation by a llowing the carryover of cr edit and the latter by

31 Also from the General Preamble at 13508: “[s]ome air planning agencies may be used to thinking in terms of the emissions reduction required relative to a curren t control strategy projection..., rather than a target level of emissions. Projections of 1996 emission would be used to calculate the required emissions reduction expressed on such a basis by simply taking the difference between the 1996 projection inventory (without controls applied) and the 1996 target level of emissions.”

32 That excess emissions can be carried forward is also clear when it is understood that a ROP milestone is a total emissions level target and not an emissions reduction target.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 112

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### not ignoring otherwise creditab le emissions reductions that had already occurred. See Ass'n of
Irritated Residents v. EPA , 423 F.3d 989, 996 (In the context of a llowing credit for past emission
reductions under CAA section 189 (d) for PM-10 plans: “[b]y a llowing such crediting, the EPA provides a material incentive for implementing the most effective measures as quickly as possible.”).

3. States are allowed to substitute NOx reductions for VOC reductions in any post-1996 ROP demonstration (see CAA sec tion 182(c)(2)(C)) and may use NOx reductions exclusively for post-1996 ROP demonstrations. See 70 FR 25688, 25697 (May 13, 2005); approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s 1- hour ozone attainment demonstration; and 68 FR 7476, 7486 (February 14, 2003), approval of Rhode Island’s 1-hour ozone at tainment demonstration. SJV has an approved 15 percent ROP demonstrati on and thus has already met its minimum VOC ROP obligation. See 62 FR 1150, 1172 (January 8, 1997) . It may, therefore, rely exclusively on
NOx reductions to meet its 2008 and 2010 ROP re quirements and the commenter’s contention that the District has not met its requi red VOC ROP requirement is baseless.

Comment: CRPE asserts that we erroneously clai med that the ROP demonstration does not depend on reductions from State waiver measures or on reductions from any measures that are
not creditable under the term s of section 182(b)(1).

Response: We did not claim that the ROP demonstr ation was not dependen t on reductions from
waiver measures. Neither did we claim that the ROP was dependent on reductions from any
measures that are not creditable under the terms of section 182(b)(1). As stated in the proposal:

The [ROP] demonstration does not depend on reductions from any measures that are not either federal, SIP-approved, proposed for approval or State waiver measures or on reductions from any measures that are not creditable under the terms of section 182(b)(1).

74 FR at 33942. On the same page, we also noted in a footnote:

The ROP demonstration relies on "t he emission control program as it existed when the Valley's 2004 SIP was submitted...." 2008 Clarification at 6. As discussed in section III.C.2.c.i. [of the pr oposal], all baseline m easures are either federal, SIP-approved, proposed for appr oval, or otherwise creditable in ROP
demonstrations.

“Otherwise creditable” includes wa iver measures. See 74 FR at 33938.

Comment: CRPE argues that the CAA requires that stat es only take credit for reductions from SIP-approved measures in ROP demonstrations, citi ng CAA section 182(b)(1)(D). CRPE also argues that EPA’s longstanding in terpretation of the ROP provisi on also limits credit to SIPapproved measures, citing our proposed approv al of the ROP demonstration in the 1999
amendment to the 1997 1-hour ozon e standard plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) (65 FR 6091, 6098 (February 8, 2000)) which cites the General Preamble at 13517.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 113

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Response: CAA section 182(b)(1)(C) does not limit emissions reductions creditable in ROP demonstrations to just those re ductions from SIP-approved rules:

Except as provided under subparagraph (D), emi ssions reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent required under subparagraph (A) to the extent they have actually occurred, as of 6 years after [November 15, 1990], from the implementation of measures required under the applicable implementation plan, rules promulgated by the Administrator, or a title V permit.

(Emphasis added).

Neither federal measures nor title V permits are in the SIP. 33 

### EPA has approved numerous ROP demonstrations that rely on reducti ons from federal measures. See, for example, 61 FR 11735 (March 22, 1996), approval of Wi sconsin’s 15% ROP plan and contingency measures; 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s attainment and post-96 ROP plans; and 66 FR 54143 (October 26, 2001), approval of Pennsylvania’s post-96 ROP plan for the Philadelphia area. As discussed in the proposal , we have historically treated California’s waiver measures similarly to the Fe deral motor vehicle control requirements. 74 FR
at 33939.

In the February 2000 proposed action cited by the commenter, EPA proposed to approve
the ROP demonstration for the SCAB. This dem onstration relied explicitly on reductions from SIP-approved District rules a nd SIP-approved commitments fro m the District and State; therefore, we limited our descrip tion of the ROP requirement to those ROP provisions that were applicable to our action. By doing so, we did not rewrite the Act or the General Preamble to
limit creditable reductions in ROP demonstrations to SIP-approved measures only. We note that although the ROP demonstration in the South Coas t plan relied explicit ly only on reductions from SIP-approved rules and commitments, it relied implicitly on ARB’s adopted and implemented mobile source progra m, reductions from which are incorporated into the South Coast plan’s baseline inventory, to generate th e majority of emissions reductions needed for
ROP.

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA’s decision to find that the 2004 SIP demonstrates ROP
has no factual basis because the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan does not distinguish between reductions from SIP-approved regulati ons and from waiver measures.

Response: EPA believes that reducti ons from SIP-approved regula tions, federal rules, and waiver measures are equally creditable in ROP; therefore, there is no ne ed to distinguish the reductions from each type.

E. Attainment Demonstration

33 CAA title V requires all states to issue operating permits to their major stationary sources. EPA approves state title V programs under CAA section 502(d) and not under the SIP provisions in section 110(k)(3).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 114

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Comment: Earthjustice comments that SJV will not attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 2010 because there have been too many exceedances of the standard in 2008 and 2009 and that this
shows that the attainment demons tration is not working and is not approvable. It also comments that EPA has made clear that attainment by the deadline requires that the three years leading up to that deadline must be clean. In suppor t of its position, the commenter cites EPA’s PM2.5 implementation rule at 40 CFR § 51.1000; the pr eamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule at 72 FR 20586, 20600 (April 25, 2007); and EPA’s “Respons e to Comments Do cument, Finalizing Approval of the PM-10 State Implementation Plan for the Clark County Serious PM-10
Nonattainment Area Annual and 24-Hour PM- 10 Standards” at page 41 (April 23, 2004).

Response: Consistent with the CAA and EPA re gulations and policy, the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan demonstrates that the emissions reductions needed to prevent future violations of the 1-hour ozone standard would be in place by the beginning of the 2010 ozone season rather than by the beginning of the 2008 ozone season. See 2004 SIP, p. 5-5.

The three cites in the commenter’s letter are all to descriptio ns of attainment
determinations . The determination of attainment re quired by CAA section 181(b)(2), which is made by reviewing ambient air quality monitoring data after the attainment date, is distinctly
different from the demonstration of attainme nt required by CAA secti on 182(c)(2), which is based on projections of future air quality levels and submitted before the attainment date. For the 1-hour ozone standard, an attainment determ ination is based on moni tored air quality levels in the three years preceding the attainment date. General Preamble at 13506. In acting on the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan under CAA section 110(k), we are not making an attainment
determination.

An attainment demonstration is based on air quality modeling showing that projected emissions in the attainment year will be at or be low the level needed to prevent violations of the relevant ambient air quality standard. For ozone, the attainment year is defined as the calendar year that includes the last fu ll ozone season prior to the stat utory attainment date. 40 CFR 51.900(g). More simply, ozone attainment demonstra tions show that the air quality will be at or
below the level of the standard no later than the beginning of th e ozone season immediately prior
to the attainment date. EPA has never interpreted the Act to requi re that the demonstration show that air quality levels will be at or below the level of the standard fo r each of the three ozone seasons prior to the attainment date.

We believe this position is consistent with th e ozone attainment provisions in subpart 2 of title 1, part D of the CAA. The program Congr ess crafted here for ozone attainment does not require that all measures needed to attain the standard be implemented three years prior to the area’s attainment date. For example, modera te areas were required by section 182(b)(1) to provide for VOC emissions reductions of 15 percent reduction by November 15, 1996 which was
also the attainment date for these areas. For areas classified serious and above, CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that ROP of 3 percent per year averaged over 3 years “until the attainment date” (a total of 9 per cent reduction in emissions in the 3 year s leading up to an area’s attainmentTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 115

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### date). 34 

### EPA does not believe that C ongress intended these mandatory reductions to be in excess
of what is needed to attain.

This position is also consistent with the at tainment date extension provisions in CAA section 181(a)(5). Under this sec tion, an area that does not have three-years of data meeting the ozone standard by its attainment date but has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable im plementation plan and has no more than one
exceedance of the standard in the attainment year, may receive a one-year extension of its attainment date. Assuming these conditions ar e again met the following year, the area may receive an additional one-year extension. If th e area has no more than one exceedance in this final extension year, then it will have three years of data indicating that it has attained the ozone
standard.

EPA has consistently taken th is position in guidance and in our approval of 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. Our ozone modeling guidance, which was issued less than a year
after the 1990 CAA Amendments we re enacted, requires States to model the ozone season before
the attainment date and not the third ozone seas on before the attainment date. The following excerpt is from Chapter 6 “Attainment Demonstrations” of that guidance, Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Air Shed Model (July 1991, OAQPS, EPA):

The primary reason for conducting photochemical modeling is to demonstrate the
effectiveness of alternative control stra tegies in attaining the NAAQS for ozone throughout the modeling domain. This demons tration consists of four main parts: (1) developing attainment-year modeling emission inventories, (2) developing alternative-control strategy emission inventories, (3) performing model simulations for the attainment year with and without alternative control strategies, and (4) comparing attainment year and c ontrol strategy simulation results with the ozone [standard].

where

The attainment year is determined by the nonattainment area designation and the attainment dates specified in the 1990 CAA [Amendments].

The ozone attainment demonstrations that EPA has approved since the CAA
Amendments of 1990 have been based on this m odeling guidance and show that there will be no
violations in the attainment year. See, for example, 61 FR 10921 (March 18, 1996) and 62 FR 1150 (January 8, 1997), proposed and final approval of California’s attainment plans for 7 nonattainment areas; 66 FR 54143 (October 25, 2001) , approval of Pennsylvania’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan for the Phila delphia area; 67 FR 30574 (May 7, 2002), and approval of Georgia’s 1-hour ozone attainment plan for Atlanta.

34 This would represent a substantial level of extra emissions reductions. For example, the 2004 SIP showed that a combined VOC + NOx reduction of only 34 percent from 2000 base year levels was needed for
attainment. See 74 FR at 33943.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 116

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### We took the same position on attainment demo nstrations for the 8-hour ozone standard promulgated in 1997 when we promulgated regula tions specifying the deadline for implementing emissions reductions for purposes of attainment of that standard. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.908(d) provides: “For each nonattainment area, the Stat e must provide for implementation of all control
measures needed for attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season.” “Attainment year ozone season” is defined as “the ozone season immediately preceding a
nonattainment area’s attainment date.” 40 CFR 51.900(g). The preamble to the rule promulgating section 51.908( d) further provides:

We will generally review the [attainment] demonstrations for technical merit using EPA’s most recent modeling guidance at the time the attainment demonstration is performed. This guidan ce will generally have the State provide (1) technical analyses to locate and identif y sources of emissions that are causing violations of the 8-hour [ozone standard ] within nonattainment areas, (2) adopted measures...appropriate for attainment, w ith implementation no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season.

70 FR 71612, 71627 (November 29, 2005).

This position is perhaps mostly clearly articulated (as is the distinction between
attainment determinations and attainment demo nstrations) in “Guidance for Determining the ‘Attainment Year’ for Transportation Conf ormity in New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas,” EPA420-B-05-002, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA, March 2005, page 1:

The CAA requires areas to attain the re levant standards by the area’s maximum attainment date. For purposes of th e 8-hour ozone standa rd and the PM2.5 standard, a determination of attainment after the attainment date has passed is based on the most recent three complete years of data prior to the area’s attainment date. Thus, where an area has a maximum attainment date in April (for PM2.5) or June (for 8-hour ozone), th e most recent three y ears of data will be from the three preceding calendar years. For example, if an area’s maximum attainment date is April or June of 2010, then air quality monitoring data from 2007, 2008 and 2009 would be considered for the purpose of determining whether
the area has met its attainment date. Moreover, for purposes of predicting attainment of the standard through a mode ling demonstration, states would need to predict that air quality in the last ozone or PM2.5 “season” (i.e., 2009) would meet the standard. For that reason, EPA’s implementation rule for the 8-hour ozone standard requires areas to implement all the measures necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the start of the final complete ozone season precedi ng the area’s attainment date (40 CFR §51.908). We anticipate that the implementa tion rule for the PM2.5 standard willTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 117

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### have a similar requirement. 35



### Comment: Earthjustice argues that the plan has alre ady failed because ambient air quality data for 2008 shows too many exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard to attain by 2010 under
EPA’s definition of that standar d. It comments that the modeli ng in the 2004 SIP’s prediction of attainment by 2010 confirms the “garbage in, garb age out” maxim in modeling; that strategies being implemented by the State and District are not working; and that the 2004 SIP’s demonstration of attainment by 201 0 is “clearly fiction.” It a sserts that EPA cannot approve the 2004 SIP and must instead focus on developing a new, meaningful plan that demonstrates attainment as expeditiously as practicable.

Response: We do not agree that the 2004 1-hour ozone plan has already failed. As discussed in above, the plan did not demonstrate that ther e would be no violations of the revoked 1-hour
ozone standard in 2008 or 2009. Rather it demonstrates that clean air would begin with the 2010
ozone season. Because we are st ill months away from the start of the 2010 ozone season and air quality trends show a decreasing number of days over the standard, we believe it is premature to say the 2004 1-hour ozone plan will not resu lt in attainment by the SJV area’s ultimate applicable attainment date. 36



### G. Contingency Measures

Comment: Earthjustice states that the purpose of contingency measures following an area’s failure to attain is to provide extra emissions reduc tions that are needed to attain. It then asserts that EPA’s approach of allowing areas to cred it emissions reductions from measures that are already in place that are not need ed for attainment is arbitrary and illegal because, if the area does fail to attain, the reductions from these meas ures are not surplus and more are needed. It argues further that EPA’s policy allows plans to be approved without the “safety net that Congress envisioned,” so that when the SJV area fails to attain in 2010 there is nothing in the plan that can take immediate eff ect without further action by the St ate or the District to address
such a failure.

Response: We did not propose to credit “extra” or “surplus” reductions in the attainment demonstration as contingency measures in our proposed approval of the attainment contingency provisions in the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan. 37 

### In our July 14, 2009 proposal and again in our

35 This guidance was issued prior to the PM2.5 implementation rule’s publication on April 25, 2007. The PM2.5 rule does contain similar requirements to the 8-hour ozone implementation rule. See § 51.1007(b). See also section III.E.6., What future years should be modeled? , in the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule at 72 FR 20586, 20609.

36 While attainment of air quality standards is the primary purpose of SIPs, they are also, along the way, expected to reduce the number and severity of violations of the standards. See section 176(c)(1)(A). In this respect, the 2004 1-hour ozone plan has been successful.

37 By “surplus” and “extra” emissions reductions, the commenter is referring to emissions reductions that are realized in the attainment year that are more than th e emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment.
We refer to these additional reduc tions as “excess reductions in the attainment demonstration.”Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 118

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### October 2, 2009 supplementary proposal, we made it clear that there were no excess emissions reductions from adopted measures in the attain ment demonstration. See 74 FR at 33944 and 74 FR 50936, 50937. Nevertheless, the commenter seems to believe that the reductions the State credits as its attainment contingency measures will already be in place by the SJV area’s attainment year, 2010, and thus will already be contributing to reduced ozone levels in that year. If that were the case, should the area fail to attain, there would be no additional reductions available beyond those that were re alized in 2010 that could be tr iggered to further improve air quality. This is not correct.

The measures relied on for attainment c ontingency measures in the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan are existing State and federal on- and off-road new engine standards. 38 

### Emissions reductions from these types of measures accumulate year to year as the engine fleet turns over, resulting in increasing benefits over time. All of the reductions from these measures that are used by the State to show compliance with the attainment contingency measures requirement occur in 2011, the year after the SJV area’s attainment date. It is this additional benefit, i.e., an additional 15.7 tpd NOx and 8.6 tpd VOC in re ductions beyond the reductions from these measures in 2010, that will be realized in the SJ V area in 2011, that the State uses to meet the contingency measures requireme nt. 74 FR 50936, 50938 (Table 1). Thus these reductions will not be reflected in 2010 ambient air quality levels but will provide air quality benefits in 2011. In this respect, the emission reductions from th e State and federal on- and off-road new engine
standards that serve as contingency measures in the SJV area are virtually identical in operation to the type of contingency measure that the commenter appears to advocate, e.g., a control measure adopted by the State or District that would remain uni mplemented, and thus yielding no emission reductions until triggered by a failure of the area to attain the standard.

In LEAN v. EPA , 382 F.3d 575 (5 th 

### Cir. 2004), the court upheld EPA’s approval of contingency measures that relied on reductions th at occurred one year pr ior to the Baton Rouge
area’s failure to attain but that continued on an annual basis thereafter and were, among other things, surplus. Id . at 583. In other words, as the cour t framed it, “the effects continue to manifest an effect after the plan fails.” Id. The court found that “[ t]he setting aside of a continuing, surplus emissions reduction fits n eatly within the CAA’s requirement that a necessary element of a contingency measure is that it must ‘take effect without further action by the State or [EPA]’” Id . at 584. In LEAN , in contrast to the situation here, the air quality benefits from the contingency measures occurred prior to a potential plan failure and the emission
reductions from these measures did not increase ther eafter, but continued at the same rate. Thus the contingency measures in the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan, to a greater extent than in LEAN

,

38 EPA has long allowed states to use already implem ented measures to meet th e CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency measures requirement, provided that the reductions from these measures were not also relied on for attainment and/or ROP, i.e., in excess to the attainment demonstration or ROP. See 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (Decembe r 18, 1997); 66 FR 3081 1 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001). In these rulemakings, however, unlike the situation here, the reductions used for contingency measures were realized in the attainment year, i.e., they were excess reductions in the attainment demonstration, and continued without increasing into following years.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 119

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### fulfill the purpose of such measures “to provide a cushion while the plan is being revised to meet the missed milestone.” 72 FR 20586, 20642.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that off-road em issions reduction benefits projected for 2011 do not appear to reflect ARB’s recent amendments to its in-use off-road diesel mobile source rules that have delayed reductions from this ru le originally expected in 2011 and 2012 and that this means that a significant portion of the NOx reductions counted on to fulfill the contingency measure requirement will not in fact be available in 2011.

Response: This comment was submitted in resp onse to our July 14, 2009 proposal on the 2004 1-hour plan. See 74 FR at 33944. In that propos al, reductions for contingency measures came solely from on-road mobile sources, so any delays in the implementation of the off-road program
would not affect these reductions. See 74 FR at 33944 (...there are 10 tpd NOx and 5 tpd VOC in reductions in 2011 from adopted on-road mobile source measures that could serve to fulfill a portion of the attainment conti ngency measures requirement.”).

Subsequent to our July 14, 2009 proposal, ARB submitted additional information during that proposals comment period which provided NOx and VOC reductions from off-road mobile source control measures in 2011. See letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, Air Resources Board, August 28, 2009 (“ARB comment letter”). We used this additional information in our October 2, 2009 supplementa ry proposal to approve the contingency measures. In that proposal, we noted that “[t]he reductions in the off-road engine category were
taken from baseline emission i nventories developed as inputs to the air quality modeling supporting the attainment demonstration in the 2004 SIP. These baseline emission inventories include reductions only from measures adopted prior to September 2002; therefore, the estimate of emissions reductions from the off-road engine s category reflects only these measures.” See 74 FR 52936, 52938 (October 2, 2009). ARB adopted its initial in-use off-road diesel rule in July 2007. Because the in-use off-road diesel ru le was not relied upon to meet the attainment contingency measure provision, any delay in its implementation does not affect the reduction
estimates.

Comment: Earthjustice comments that the problems it ha s noted with the inventory (that it is not
based on the latest California mobile source m odel, EMFAC2007, and as a result underestimates NOx emissions from mobile sources) mean that the baseline inventory for 2010 is inaccurate, and therefore, the emissions reductions needed to meet the contingency measures requirement (3 percent of the 2010 baseline) and the emissions re ductions estimates from certain mobile source
measures are also inaccurate.

Response: As we have discussed above in th e Emissions Inventory section, EPA’s longestablished and consistent policy is that SIPs are to use the most current information available at the time they are developed and that states are not required to revise SIPs should new
information arise after their submittal. At the time the 2004 SIP was developed, EMFAC2002 was the most current California mobile source model available and the State correctly used it to develop the plan. Thus, the 2010 baseline invent ory, the emissions reductions needed to meetTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 120

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### the contingency measures requirement, and the emissions reductions estimates from mobile
source measures are all calculat ed according to EPA’s guidance.

Comment: With regard to EPA’s October 2, 200 9 supplementary proposal to approve the contingency measures, Earthjustice agrees that it is appropriate to consider the new information provided in the ARB comment le tter but objects to EPA’s atte mpt to pick and choose what current information it will consider in appr oving the elements of the 1-hour ozone plan.

Response: Contrary to Earthjustice’ s contention, EPA is not sele ctively making use of current inventory data in considering ARB’s addi tional information. ARB did not submit any
information based on emissions inventories devel oped subsequent its plan submittal. Instead, it extracted and summarized data that had already b een submitted as part of the 2004 SIP. The data that ARB provided was taken from the emissions inventory that was completed in 2003 to support the air quality m odeling in the 2004 SIP. See email, Jeff Lindberg, ARB, to Frances Wicher, EPA, “2011 Off-Road Emission Estimates for the San Joaquin Valley’s 1-hour Ozone Plan,” September 10, 2009. These data are unlik e the information which the commenter has urged EPA to consider in approving the 2004 SIP, e.g., EMFAC2007. That information was developed well after the submittal of the 2004 SI P and could not have been considered in development of it.

Comment: Earthjustice notes that EPA’s proposal to approve the updated contingency measure demonstration rests on crediting emissions re ductions from State programs that are not enforceable components of the plan. It asserts that the CAA requires that all State and local control measures relied upon to satisfy the planni ng requirements of the Act be included in the implementation plan, citing the language in CAA s ections 172(c)(9) and 182( c)(9) and that it is not sufficient to simply identify measures becaus e they could be revised or revoked without EPA approval under section 110(l), or would be unenf orceable under the CAA if the State were to decide not to implement them.

Response: In this particular case, all measures cred ited as contingency measures are State and
federal on- or off-road mobile source controls adopted prior to September 2002. These controls
include waiver measures which EPA believes ma y be used to meet the CAA’s contingency measures requirement. In our response to comme nts on the treatment of waiver measures above, we address at length our view that such measures can be relie d on to meet the CAA’s planning requirements without being approved by EPA into th e SIP. We also addre ss in that section the commenter’s concerns regarding en forceability and antibacksliding.

We note further that since the State has been implementing these emission standards since 2002, the likelihood that th e State will, at this late date, suddenly decide to stop implementing them is negligible. Moreover, engi nes complying with these standards are already being sold and therefore the te chnology required to meet them has been demonstrated, making it even less likely that the State would stop implemen ting them. However, in the unlikely event that
the State should relax or revoke a measure that is relied on fo r contingency, EPA has
mechanisms other than section 110(l) to assure adequate co ntingency measures, including finding the SIP inadequate under section 110(k)(5).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 121

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### We note also that since 2002, in part to fu lfill its emissions reductions commitment, the State has adopted other c ontrol measures that reduce emissions from on- and off-road vehicles which are not considered in calculating the post-2010 emissions reductions for contingency
measures. See Goldstene letter. We also note th at the State and District have submitted the 2007 8-hour ozone plan that includes addi tional post-2010 emissions reductions.

Comment: Earthjustice claims that our proposal on the appropriate treatment of emissions
reductions from waiver measures makes no menti on of contingency measures or the specific statutory language in sections 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) which provide that “[s]uch measures shall be included in the plan revision.... ” It then asserts that the extension of our policy on waiver measures to contingency measures ignores the pl ain language of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
and that EPA has not shown that it has allowed th e use of measures that are not in the SIP for contingency measures. Finally, th e commenter states that EPA ca nnot claim that Congress in the 1990 Amendments ratified the practice of allowi ng waiver measures as contingency measures because EPA has never before adopted it.

Response: Our discussion in the proposal regarding the SIP crediting of emissions reductions
from waiver measures does not address the SI P purposes for which thes e reductions would be used. Our discussion presumed that waiver meas ures could be credited for any SIP purpose for
which similar federal measures can be used: “E PA treated [the waiver] 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.” 74 FR at 33939. While there was no explicit statutory requirement for contingenc y measures prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments,
there is no reason to believe that Congress would make a distincti on between measures creditable
in attainment and ROP demonstrations and those creditable for contingency measures.

EPA has long allowed States to use federal measures as contingency measures. See 62 FR 15844, 15847 (April 3, 1997), approva l of Indiana’s 15 percent ROP plan for the ChicagoGary-Lake County 1-hour ozone nonattain ment area; 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), approval of Illinois’ 15 percen t ROP plans for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area and East St . Louis 1-hour ozone nonattainmen t area; 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001), approval of Rhode Island’s post- 96 ROP plan; 55 FR 33996, 33999 (June 26, 2001), approval of St. Louis’s 1- hour ozone attainment plan ; 66 FR 40802, 40824 (August 3, 2001) finalized at 66 FR 56944 (Nove mber 13, 2001), approval of Indi ana’s attainment and ROP demonstrations and related contingency measures for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County 1-hour ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 56904, 56905 (November 13, 2001) approval of Illinois’s
attainment and ROP demonstrations and relate d contingency measures for the Chicago-GaryLake County 1-hour ozone nonattainment area.

We have also discussed the potential use of federal measur es as contingency measures. See, for example, 66 FR 586, 600 and 615-616 (Ja nuary 3, 2001), approval of the Washington,
D.C. area’s 1-hour attainment demonstration; and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001), approval of
Connecticut’s attainment demonstration.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 122

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### Finally, we allow the use of federal measur es as contingency measures for 8-hour ozone plans. See 68 FR 32802, 32837 (June 2, 2003), propos ed 8-hour ozone implementation rule and 70 FR 71612, 71651 (November 29, 2005), phase 2 8-hour ozone implementation rule.

Comment: CRPE argues against the use of waiver measures and on-road fleet turnover as contingency measures because waiver measures are not in the SIP and there are no control measures that require fleet tur nover. It argues that reductions from fleet turnover are derived from assumptions based on voluntary future activity that fail to meet the Act’s requirements for
enforceable measures.

Response: As discussed previously, we believe that reductions fr om waiver measures can be used to meet the CAA’s contingency measure re quirement even though they are not in the SIP.

The measures relied on for attainment cont ingency measure emission reductions are the State and federal on- and off-road new engines sta ndards and not fleet turnove r. Fleet turnover is the process of new, cleaner engi nes replacing old, dirtier engines through normal attrition. It is the mechanism by which all new engine standards are implemented, and it is how these standards actually result in emissions reductions in an area.

Our intention in discussing fl eet turnover in our proposals wa s to highlight that alreadyadopted on- and off-road new engines standard s would produce substantial additional emissions
reductions in 2011 over 2010. These emissions reductions, however, did not assume any additional programs (e.g., incentive funding) to incr ease the rate of fleet turnover over the rate that was expected when the new engines standards were adopted.

Comment: CRPE argues that it is arbitrary and capric ious and a violation of the CAA for EPA to approve 2008 and 2010 ROP contingency measure de monstrations or to provide credit to the attainment year contingency demonstration wh en EPA has made no finding that such fleet turnover reductions have actually occurred.

Response: To show that the plan included co ntingency measures for the 2008 and 2010 ROP demonstrations, the state showed that baseline mobile, stationa ry and area source measures collectively assured that the area’ s emission levels were at least 3 percent below the level needed
to show ROP. See 74 FR at 33941. As we have discussed previously, absent information to the contrary, we assume that sources comply with applicable emission limitations and the agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with them ar e exercising appropriate oversight. We also assume that engines are being replaced on the sc hedule expected when the new engine standard was adopted.

The attainment contingency measures in the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan rely on prospective new emissions reducti ons that will result from the an ticipated fleet turnover in 2011.
We have determined that the mobile source meas ures relied on for these contingency measures are adopted and are being implemented and will c ontinue to generate emissions reductions in 2011. We cannot, however, determine whether th e anticipated fleet turnover in 2011 has actually occurred until after 2011.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 123

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### Comment: SJVAPCD encouraged EPA not to disappr ove the attainment contingency measures in the 2004 1-hour ozone plan because the CAA doe s not specify that a minimum reduction of 3 percent is required for contingenc y measures and ARB has informed the District that it would be submitting additional information demonstrating th at there are sufficient additional emissions reductions from creditable measures to meet the 3 percent requirement.

Response: Subsequent to the District submitting this comment, ARB submitted additional information and, based on that information, we proposed to approve the attainment contingency measures in the 2004 1-hour ozone plan and to withdraw our proposed disapproval. See 74 FR 50936 (October 2, 2009). We are approving th ese measures in th is final action.

Comment: ARB submitted additional information fr om the modeling invent ories in the 2004 SIP
that shows on- and off-road mobile source m easures adopted prior to September 2002 provide emissions reductions in 2011of 4.2 percen t of the adjusted 2010 baseline.

Response: On October 2, 2009 we proposed to approve the attainment contingency measures in the SJV 1-hour ozone plan based on this ad ditional information provided by ARB and to withdraw our July 14, 2009 pr oposed disapproval. See 74 FR 50936. We are approving the attainment contingency measures in this final action.

H. VMT Offset Requirement

Comments: CRPE alleges that the 2004 SIP fails to include transportation control measures (TCM) as required by CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), a sserting that the plai n language, legislative history, and the structure of th e CAA require TCMs when vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increase in a region. In support of its position, the Center quotes a statement from the legislative history of the 1990 CAA Amendments: “[t]he baseline for determining whether there has been growth in
emissions due to increased VMT is the level of vehicle emissions that would occur if VMT held
constant in the area.” 2 S. Comm. on Envir onment & Public Works, 103rd Cong., A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Comm. Print 1993) at 3266 (H.R. Rep. No. 101-490 (1990)).

Response: CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires a state to submit a SIP revision, for severe and extreme nonattainment areas such as the SJV area, th at identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies and TCMs to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or numbers of vehicle trips in such areas. Since the statutor y language plainly requires that growth in emissions be offset, we interpret th is provision to require TCMs only when there is growth in emissions due to growth in VMT or ve hicle trips and not when there is simply growth in VMT or vehicle trips without a consequentia l growth in emissions. Because the 2004 1-hour ozone plan shows that through the attainment year there will be no increase in motor vehicle emissions caused by increased VMT or numbers of vehicle trips, the stat utory duty to adopt and submit TCMs to offset emissions growth has not b een triggered. See 2008 Clarifications, page 9, (Table 3) and 74 FR at 33945 (Table 6).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 124

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### We discuss CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), as we ll as the excerpt from the legislative history of the 1990 CAA Amendments cited by the commenter, in the General Preamble:

The EPA has received comment i ndicating that section 182(d)(1)(A) should be interpreted to require areas to offset any growth in VMT above 1990 levels, rather than offsetting VMT growth only when such growth leads to actual
emissions increases. Unde r this approach, areas would have to offset VMT growth even while vehicle emissions are declining. Proponents of this interpretation cite language in the House Committee Report which appears to support the interpretation. Th e report states that ‘(t)he baseline for determining whether there has been growth in emissions due to increased VMT is the level of
vehicle emissions that would occur if VM T held constant in the area.’ (H.R. No. 101–490, part 1, 101st Cong. 2nd Sess., at 242).

Although the statutory language could be read to require offsetting of any VMT growth, EPA believes that the language can also be read so that only actual emissions increases resulting from VMT growth need to be offset. The statute by its own terms requires offsetting of ‘any growth in emissions from growth in VMT.’ It is reasonable to interpret this language as requiring that VMT growth must be offset only where such growth results in emissions increases from the
motor vehicle fleet in the area.

While it is true that the language of the H.R. 101–490 appears to support the alternative interpretation of the statutory language, such an alternative interpretation would have dr astic implications for many of the areas subject to this provision. Since VMT is growing at rates as high as 4 percent per year in some cities such as Los Angeles, these citi es would have to impose draconian TCM’s such as mandatory no-drive restrictions, to fully offset the effects of increasing VMT if the areas where [sic] forced to i gnore the beneficial imp acts of all vehicle tailpipe and alternative fuel controls.

Although the original au thors of the provision and H.R. 101–490 may in fact have intended this result, EPA does not believe the Congress as a whole, or even the full House of Representatives, be lieved at the time it voted to pass the
CAAA that the words of th is provision would impose such severe restrictions. There is no further legislative history on th is aspect of the provision; it was not discussed at all by any member of the Congress during subsequent legislative debate and adoption.

Given the susceptibility of the stat utory language to these two alternative interpretations, EPA believes that it is the Agency’s role in administering the statute to take the interpretation most reasonable in light of the practical implications of such interpretation, ta king into consideration the purposes and intent of the statutory scheme as a whole. In the cont ext of the intricate planning requirements Congress established in title I to bring areas towa rds attainment ofTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 125

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### the ozone standard, and in light of the abse nce of any discussion of this aspect of the VMT offset provision by the Congress as a whole (either in floor debate or in Conference Report), EPA concludes that th e appropriate interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A) requires offsetting VMT growth only when such growth would
result in actual emissions increases.”

57 FR 13498, 13522–13523.

We have consistently applied this interpreta tion in our previous approvals of other SIPs implementing the provision. See, for exampl e, 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 approva l of New Jersey’s 15 percent ROP plan and other provisions for the New York-New Je rsey-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-Conne cticut 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 rela ted provisions; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 2005), approval of Atlant a’s VMT plan.

We also applied this interpretation in our March 10, 2009 final action on the 2004 1-hour ozone plan for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). In comments on the proposal for this action, CRPE made the same arguments as it does here. See 74 FR 10176, 10179, and letter, Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center on Race, P overty & the Environment, November 17, 2009, “Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Impl ementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for San Joaquin Valley, CA (D ocket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693); Comments on Implementation Plans; State of California; 2003 State Strategy and 2003 South Coast Plan for One-Hour Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide (Docket No. EPA-R0 9-2008-0677).”

CRPE has also petitioned the 9 th 

### Circuit Court of Appeals to review our March 2009 final action including our determination that the plan met CAA section 182(d)(1). See Petitioners’ Joint Opening Brief, Association of Irritated Residents, Et Al. v. EPA , and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA , Nos. 09-71383 & 09-71404, 9 th 

### Circuit Court of Appeals. We incorporate by reference our response brief at pages 47-61. See 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, 9 th 

### Circuit Court of Appeals.

Comments: CRPE asserts that VMT has increased within the San Joaquin Valley and that vehicle emissions are higher than they would be if VMT held constant in the area, so EPA’s failure to require TC Ms violates the Act.

Response: For the reasons discussed in response to the previous comment, we believe that section 182(d)(1)(A) only requires the offset of a ny growth in emissions due to VMT growth and not the offset of any growth in VMT in the ab sence of consequential gr owth of motor vehicle emissions. Consistent with our guidance in the General Preamble, the 2004 1-hour planTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 126

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### demonstrates that there is no year-to-year growth in motor vehicle emissions due to VMT growth over the life of the plan. S ee 2008 Clarifications, p. 9. Ther efore, no additional TCMs are required under section 182(d)(1 )(A), and EPA may approve the 2004 SIP as meeting the CAA section 182(d)(1). See discussion at 74 FR at 33944.

Comment: Earthjustice first notes that EPA proposes to find that the 2004 1-hour plan satisfies the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requirement based on inventory data showing that NOx and VOC emissions from motor vehicles decline every year from 2000 through 2011 and then argues that the demonstration is insufficient to reasonably demonstrate compliance with this requirement
because the inventories are not ba sed on the latest EMFAC model. It also argues that while it is possible that the new EMFAC2007 model will show a steady declin e in motor vehicle emissions,
that outcome is not obvious or certain because the revisions increased NOx emission levels from trucks. Finally, it asserts that EPA must use the current EMFAC2007 and related inventories to
assess whether control measures are in fact required under section 182(d)(1)(A).

Response: For the reasons discussed above in ou r responses to comments on the emission inventory, we do not believe Calif ornia is required to update th e 2004 1-hour ozone plan with EMFAC2007. The CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) require ment only applies to offsetting growth in VOC emissions and does not require offsetting gr owth in NOx emissions, thus the comment on increases in NOx emissions is not germane. 39 

### We note again that California has submitted a new ozone plan based on EMFAC2007 to address CAA requirements for the 8-hour ozone standard.

Comment: Earthjustice argues that because EPA and ARB no longer allow EMFAC2002 (but rather require EMFAC2007) to be used for transportation conformity determinations, it is arbitrary for EPA to continue to rely on it in the 2004 SIP to demonstrate compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A).

Response: The commenter does not explain the connection it finds be tween the current requirement to use EMFAC2007 in transportation conformity determinat ions and the use of EMFAC2002 in the demonstration of complian ce with section 182(d)(1 ) in the 2004 1-hour ozone plan. Currently transportation conform ity in the SJV is done using motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) from the 8-hour ozone plan and these MVEBs were developed using EMFAC2007. See 2007 Ozone Plan, Appendix C. The MVEB from the 1-hour ozone plan can no longer be used in conformity de terminations in the Valley.

The 2004 SIP addresses the now revoked 1-hour ozone standard. As a result of our 1- hour ozone standard revocation, tr ansportation conformity determinations are no longer required for that standard. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004). Under our tran sportation conformity regulations, 8-hour ozone MVEBs replace existing 1-hour ozone MVEBs once the 8-hour ozone

39 While this is not clear from the language in section 182(d)(1) itself, it is made clear in the similar requirement for carbon monoxide (CO) pl ans in section 187(b)(2): “the State shall submit a revision that includes the transportation control measures as required in section 182 (d)(1) ...except that such revision shall be for the purpose of reducing [CO] emissions rather than volatile organic compound emissions.” See also, General Preamble
at 13521.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 127

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### budgets are found adequate or are approved. See 40 CFR 93.109(e)(1) and (2). The MVEB budgets from the 2004 SIP were used in initial c onformity determinations in the SJV area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. They were replaced, however, when we found the 8-hour ozone budgets from the 20007 SIP to be adequate on January 8, 2009. 40 

### Thus, the 1-hour budgets in the 2004 SIP are now obsolete, and for this reas on we proposed no action on them. See 74 FR at 33946, ftn 28. We received no comments on this point.

I. Clean Fuels/Technology for Boilers

Comment: Earthjustice notes EPA’s statements that the District’s two rules governing gas- and liquid-fired boilers, Rules 4306 and 4307, require advanced NOx controls and have been approved as RACT and that the District’s rule covering solid-fuel-fired boilers, Rule 4352, also requires advanced NOx control. It then assert s that EPA has no rational basis for these claims and EPA has not identified what kinds of advanced controls are in place at sources covered by these rules. The commenter included several perm its for solid-fuel boilers that operate in the SJV, asserting that permits do not require cata lytic control technology or comparably effective
methods to reduce NOx emissions.

Response: Section 182(e)(3) of the Act requires that SIPs for extr eme ozone nonattainment areas contain provisions requiring that each new, modifi ed, and existing electric utility and industrial and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tp y of NOx either: (1) burn as its primary fuel a clean fuel (natural gas, metha nol, or ethanol, or a comparably low-polluting fuel), or (2) use advanced control technology (such as catalytic control technology or other comparably effective control methods) to reduce NOx emissions. We be lieve the term "catalytic control technology" was intended generally to refer to selective catalytic reduction (SCR).

SJVAPCD Rule 4306-Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters - Phase 3; Rule 4307-Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 2.0 MMBtu/hr To 5.0 MMBtu/hr; and Rule 4309-Boilers, Steam Generators, and Pr ocess Heaters - 0.075 MMB tu/hr To 2.0 MMBtu/hr apply to gas- and liquid-fueled boilers. 41 

### Because of the fuel-input rate limits (5.0 MMBtu/hr and 2.0 MMBTU/hr) in Rules 4307 and 4308, as approve d in the SIP, boilers subject to these rules are too small to be subject to CAA secti on 182(e)(3) (i.e., these boilers do not emit greater than 25 tpy of NOx). 42 

### We discussed in the proposal that boilers subject to Rule 4306 could only

40 See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA to James Goldstene, ARB, “Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8- hour Ozone Rate of Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets” and 74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009).

41 EPA approved Rule 4306 as amended September 18, 2003 at 69 FR 28061 (May18, 2004); Rule 4307 as amended on April 20, 2006 at 72 FR 29887 (May 30, 2007); and Rule 4308 as adopted October 20, 2005 at 72 FR 29887 (May 30, 2007). These are the versio ns of the rules credited in the 2004 SI P. See 74 FR at 33937 (Table 2).

42 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. The 1994 ACT is the “Alternative Control Techniques
Document--NOx Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Ins titutional (ICI) Boilers,” Emissions Standards Division, EPA, March 1994.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 128

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### comply with the limits in that rule through the use of advanced control technologies. See 74 FR
at 33945. SJVAPCD Rule 4352-Solid Fuel Fired Bo ilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heater (amended May 18, 2006) applies to boilers that burn a variety of solid fuels. We discuss Rule
4352 further below.

The State submitted the 2004 SIP on November 15, 2004. As of that date, the last full year of inventory data available to the District to determine if boilers in the SJV area met the section 182(e)(3) requirement wa s 2003. Inventory data availa ble from the ARB’s emissions inventory database (h ttp://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm) show that, in 2003, all boilers that emitted 25 tpy NOx were either fired on natural gas or solid fuel.

SJVAPCD Rule 4352- Solid Fuel Fired Boiler s, Steam Generators, and Process Heater (amended May 18, 2006) applies to commercial and industrial boilers (in a ddition to other types of emission units) at facilities that potentiall y emit 10 tpy or more of NOx, which includes all
boilers at such facilities that emit more than 25 tpy of NOx. All of the NOx emission limits in the current rule effectively require operation of Selective Noncataly tic Reduction (SNCR) control systems. As discussed below, we be lieve SNCR is “comparably effective” to SCR for the affected sources, and thus fulfills CAA s ection 182(e)(3) requirements for these affected sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NOx emi ssions reductions comparable to combustion of clean fuels at these types of boilers. 43



### According to information in EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/htm/bl02.cfm), recent Pr evention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits contain emission limits for coal-f ired boilers ranging from 0.067 lbs/million Btu (MMBtu) (for large co al-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. See RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. According to the 1994 ACT for industrial/commercial/ institutional boilers (Table 2- 6), wood-fired watertube boile rs with SCR can achieve NOx
emissions of 0.22 lb/MMBtu. The 1994 ACT does not contain emission levels for wood-fired
fluid bed combustion 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.

Our review of these emissi on 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), municipal solid wa ste, and many other types of solid fuels. As a general matter, SNCR is also comparably effec tive to SCR control for circulating fluidized bed
coal-fired boilers of less than 50 MW electric generation capacity. For coal-fired boilers, we

43 We proposed to approve Rule 4352 as meeting the CAA section 182(b)(1) RACT requirement on May 30, 2007 at 72 FR 29901. Concurrent with this May 30, 2007 proposal, we also approved Rule 4352 in a direct final
action. See 72 FR 29887. Because we received adverse comments on this dir ect final action, we withdrew it on July 30, 2007 (72 FR 41 450). On December 9, 2009 we reproposed to a pprove Rule 4352 into the SIP but to disapprove the District’s demonstration that the rule met the RACT requirement. See 74 FR 65042.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 129

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### CR. have focused our review on circulating fluidi zed bed boilers of less than 50 MW electric generation capacity because all ex isting coal-fired boilers in the SJV are of this type and below this size. See SJVAPCD, “District Permitted Soli d Fuel Boilers,” found in the docket for this rulemaking. 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 (T able 2-2 in the 1994 AC T for ICI boilers). SNCR control systems consistently achieve up to 80 percent NOx emissions reductions and are compatible with almost all solid fuel-fired boi ler operations, while other controls may in some cases be sensitive to catalyst poisoning and other technical constraints.

As to boilers that emit above 25 tpy of NO x, we note that, as a practical matter, only existing boilers in the SJV are likely to be c onstrained 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 st ringent control technology requirements of the Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) or PSD permit programs. The requirements of Rule 4352 are generally applicable to this source ca tegory and do not supplant any more stringent control requirements that appl y on a case-by-case ba sis under the NSR or PSD permit programs.

Additionally, according to a list of permitted f acilities in the SJV provided by the District, all permitted units subject to Rule 4352 are equipped with SNCR. 44 

### This list may be found in the docket for this rule. The permits attached by the commenter all state that the units involved have ammonia injection, another name for SN

K. Other Comments

1. Pesticide Measure

Comment: CRPE provided extensive comments on the alleged unenforceability of the pesticide element in the 2003 State Strategy and argue d that EPA should disapprove it.

Response: CRPE’s comments on the pesticide element are not germane to the action we are taking here nor are they timely and we will not address their specifics. EPA proposed no action on the pesticide element in the 2003 State Strategy as part of its action on the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan. As we noted in the proposal and acknowledged by the commenter, the plan does not rely on emissions reductions from the pesticide el ement to demonstrate atta inment or ROP. See 74 FR at 39936, ftn. 7.

In our July 14, 2009 notice, we proposed to approve only those provisions of the 2003 State Strategy that relate to the aggregate em issions reduction commitment for the San Joaquin Valley. See 74 FR at 33947. We did not propose to approve any of the i ndividual measures in the Strategy because these measures, including the pesticide element, had previously been approved in our rulemaking on the 2004 Sout h Coast ozone plan. See 74 FR 10177, 10181

44 SJVAPCD permits all boilers except for those that exclusively use natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas and have a heat input of less than 5 MMBtu/hr. See SJVAPCD Rule 2010 and 2020. Thus, “all permitted units subject to Rule 4352” covers all solid-fuel boilers potentially subject to CAA section 182(e)(3).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 130

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### (March 10, 2009). In that action, we note that th e pesticide element in the 2003 State Strategy is simply a continuation of the existing pesticid e program, a program EPA initially approved in 1997. See 74 FR 10177, 10180. CRPE timely raised its issues related to the alleged unenforceability of the pesticide in association with the South Coast ozone plan rulemaking and has raised issues again in litigation. 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, 9 th 

### Circuit Court of Appeal s, pages 16-17 and 45-47.

2. Emissions Reduction Credit for SJVAP CD Rule 4570, Confined Animal Facilities

In our July 14, 2009 proposed action on the 2004 SJV 1-hour ozone plan, the only proposal related to Rule 4570, Confined Animal Facilities (CAF) is a specific emissions
reductions credit for the rule. See 74 FR at 33937 (Table 2). In a separate proposal published on the same day as the notice on the 1-hour plan, we proposed a limited approval/limited disapproval of Rule 4570. 74 FR 33948 (July 14, 2009). CRPE submitted comment letters on both the proposed action on the 2004 1-hour ozon e plan and the proposed action on Rule 4570. In both letters, it commented on the appropriate emi ssions reductions credit to give the rule . We respond to the comments on this issue below. CRPE also commented extensively on other aspects of rule and our proposal on it. We have responded to these other comments in our final
action on that rule. See “Revis ions to the California State Im plementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Cont rol District” Final Rule (Rul e 4570), as signed December 11,
2009.

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA should not allow emissions reduction credit for SJVAPCD Rule 4570 because we have proposed to disapprove the rule for not meeting the CAA’s requirement for RACT.

Response: On July 14, 2009, EPA proposed a limite d approval/limited disapproval of Rule 4570. First we proposed to approve the rule into the California SIP under CAA section 110(k) as SIP strengthening. Second, we proposed to disapprove the District’s demons tration that the rule meets the RACT provisions of CAA section 182(b )(2). See 74 FR 33948. The limited approval means that the rule is an enforceable part of the SIP. The limited disapproval requires the District to provide additional docum entation and/or rule revisions to assure that the rule is RACT in order to avoid the impositi on of sanctions under CAA section 179 and the promulgation of a FIP under CAA section 110(c). EPA uses this appro ach when a rule is not sufficient to meet the CAA requirement for which it has been submitted but approval of the rule into the SIP will nevertheless strengthen the SIP. We are finalizing our action on Rule 4570 concurrent with this action on the 2004 1-hour ozone plan. Because Rule 4570 is now approved into the SIP,
emissions reductions from it can be credited in th e plan’s attainment demonstration and for other CAA requirements.

Comment: CRPE comments that allowing emissions reduction credit for compliance with menu option A.1 in Rule 4570 (feed according to Nati onal Research Council (NRC) Guidelines) for dairy, beef feedlot, and other ca ttle facilities is arbitrary a nd capricious and an abuse of
discretion because these reductions are already reflected in the base line emissions factor used toTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 131

_____________________________________________________________________________________________



### calculate total emissions from dairies and other cattle related operations. It th en claims that if the 10 percent emissions reduction cr edit for option A.1. was eliminat ed, then emissions reductions from Rule 4570 would drop from 7,563 tons per y ear (21 tons per day) to 5,632 tons per year (15.5 tons per day). The Center included a num ber of documents in support of its comments on
the emissions reductions.

Response: In the 2004 SIP, reductions from Rule 4570 are estimated to be 17.7 tpd or 28 percent of the baseline inventory for confined animal fac ilities. See 2008 Clarifica tions at 7 and 74 FR at 33937 (Table 2). In determining the emi ssions reductions from the rule, SJVAPCD conservatively estimated that compliance with menu option A.1. would reduce emissions by 10 percent over the baseline.

The District initially adopted Rule 4570 in June 2006 after conduc ting public workshops and providing a public review a nd comment period on both the draf t rule and its estimate of the Rule’s potential emissions reductions. See Final Draft Staff Re port for Rule 4570, p. 50. 45 

### During this public process, the Center submitted co mments similar to the ones it makes here. In response to these comments, the District noted that its emissions reductions estimate was based
on a number of research studies showing that changes in animal s’ diets would result in VOC
emissions reductions and that th e 10 percent reduction it was usi ng was at the low end of the range of effectiveness seen in th is research. It also noted that the information available in the
studies used to establish the base line emission factor were not c onclusive on whether the animals in those studies were fed according to the N RC guidelines and thus the baseline did not necessarily include reductions asso ciated with a NRC diet. See Fi nal Draft Staff Report for Rule 4570, Appendix A, p. 12.

The District based its estimated emi ssions reductions for Rule 4570 on a careful
consideration of the information then available an d used conservative (i.e., low) estimates of the potential emissions reductions. We have reviewed the District’s analysis and find it reasonable. Final Draft Staff Report for Rule 4570, p. 24. More specifically, we do not believe that it
overestimates the reductions from menu option A.1. as alleged by the commenter.

We note that the Center raised this specifi c issue in State court litigation on Rule 4570.
The courts found for the District on this issue. See Association of Irritated Residents v.
SJVAPCD (2008), 168 Cal. App. 4 th 

### 535, 553-554.

Comment : CRPE argues that Rule 4570 codifies existing prac tices and, therefore, will not generate emissions reductions. Citing the District’s Staff Report for Rule 4570, it claims that the District admits that many of the control measur es are currently being implemented and that the
District defends its rule as an anti-backsliding measure that wi ll ensure that cu rrent voluntary practices are not abandoned. CRPE then asserts that the approach that the District has taken violates the statutory requir ement that rules must reduce emissions.

45 SJVAPCD, “Final Draft Staff Report Proposed Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities),” June 15, 2006.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 132

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### Response: The District believes and we concur that Rule 4570 will generate significant emission reductions. Simply because a practice is an existing industry practice does not mean that every facility uses it or uses it consistently.

The commenter does not cite the provision in the CAA that it believes requires, as condition of approval, that SIP ru les must reduce emissions. EPA finds nothing in the CAA that requires that rules approved into the SIP by EP A result in direct and quantifiable emission reductions. We frequently appr ove rules and rule revisions that merely clarify existing requirements and are not expected to reduce em issions demonstratively. EPA can not provide
SIP credit for measures that are not enforceable , so even if measures are being implemented making them mandatory under the SIP allows credit for such reductions in the SIP, which would
not otherwise be available.

A similar argument was raised in res ponse to our 2005 proposal to approve SJVAPCD Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices (C MP) for agricultural s ources of PM-10. The commenter claimed that the emission reductions estimated to be achieved by the rule were
inaccurate and inflated because the estimate doubl e-counted emission reductions already being achieved from practices already in common use by growers. In our re sponse to this argument we stated that “it was understood that some agricultu ral 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 make s these practices mandatory and federally enforceable, allowing the District to take cr edit for the emission reductions....” 71 FR 7683 (February 14, 2006)

Comment : CRPE claims that the Di strict guessed or applied a default emissions reduction estimate to come up with a 36 percent reduction of VOC emissions from dairy operations for Rule 4570. It then asserts that approval of the rule with “fictiti ous” reductions based on commonly-used industry practices would be arbitrary and caprici ous because the majority of controls have no factual support whatsoever.

Response: The District used the be st information available at the time it adopted Rule 4570 and applied that information reasonably to determine the emissions reductions estimates for the rule. See Rule 4570 Staff Report, p. 22. As noted above, simply because a practice is commonly used in an industry does not mean that it is used by ever y facility or used consis tently by every facility in that industry. We note that th e Center also raised this specifi c issue in State court litigation on
Rule 4570. The courts found for the District on this issue. See Association of Irritated Residents
v. SJVAPCD (2008), 168 Cal. App. 4 th 

### 535, 553-554.

3. Emissions Reduction Credit for ARB’s Refo rmulated Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Rule

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA should not allo w emissions reduction credit from ARB’s reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel rule in the 2004 SIP for the reas ons explained in its comment letter on EPA’s propos ed approval on that rule.Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 133

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### Response: EPA proposed to approval ARB’s fuel regulations on July 10, 2009 at 74 FR 33196.
In its comment letter on the fuel proposal, CRPE argued that th e ARB’s fuel rules were not
enforceable for various reasons. EPA has revi ewed CRPE’s comments and determined nothing in them changed our determination that the fuels rules are enforceable and thus fully creditable. We have provided responses to CRPE’s comm ents in our final rule approving ARB’s reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel rules. See “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California,” Final Rule (California Fuels), signed December 11, 2009.

4. Monitoring Procedures for Waiver Measures

Comment: CRPE comments that the 2004 SIP and the 2003 Final State Strategy fail to demonstrate a monitoring program for waiver me asures, stating EPA regulations specifically require each plan to make this demonstration, citing 40 CFR 51.111. Response: EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 51.111 requires a descrip tion of enforcement methods including, but not limited to, procedures for monitoring compliance with each of the selected control measures and procedures for handling vi olations. These requirements apply to the
control measures that are in the SIP. For the r easons discussed previousl y, we do not believe that
California’s mobile source measures that rece ive waivers under CAA section 209 need to be submitted for inclusion into the SIP; therefore, California need not include a description of the enforcement and or monitoring program for these measures in the SIP. As we noted in the proposal, ARB’s source monitoring and enforc ement programs including its procedures for handling violations, are descri bed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/enf /enf.htm. See 74 FR at 33945.

5. New Source Review

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA’s proposed approval does not discuss how extreme area new source review requirement s have been met in the Valley. It then asserts that the
District’s NSR Rule 2201 does not meet the CAA NSR requirements for areas classified as
extreme and that the District has not been im plementing 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S as required since being bumped up to extreme on April 16, 2 004. Finally, it argues that EPA should ensure that these permitting requirements are in place and being implemented and without them the plan does not provide for expeditious attainment.

Response: SJVAPCD did not rely on its extreme NS R program for demonstrating attainment and provides a sufficient growth allowance to as sure new sources subject to the NSR program
will not interfere w ith the attainment and RFP demonstratio ns. See 2004 SIP at 3-22. Therefore, comments on them are not germane to this action. Because of this, we did not address any aspects of the program in our proposed action on the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. We note that on December 18, 2008, SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the NSR rule to address the extreme area requirements and California submitted the revisions on March 17, 2009.

6. Miscellaneous Comments

Comment: In a November 17, 2008 letter, attached to the comments submitted on this rulemaking action, Earthjustice comments that EP A should act on the 2003 Final State StrategyTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 134

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### as it was originally submitted by ARB. It ar gues that ARB’s February 13, 2008 letter from Executive Officer James Goldstene withdrawing portions of the Stra tegy is not legal.

Response: Our proposal on the 2003 Final State Stra tegy was limited to those portions of the Strategy that related to ozone attainment in the San Joaquin Valley, specifically the State’s emissions reductions commitments. The portions of the State Strategy withdrawn by California in the ARB’s February 13, 2008 letter related only to the South Coast. ARB makes this clear in
the enclosure to the letter:

ARB is withdrawing the outdated elem ents of the 2003 State Strategy that were submitted as part of the 2003 State Implementation Plan for the South Coast Air Basin.... ARB is not withdrawing the emissions reduction commitment of the 2003 State Strategy as it applies to the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

“California Air Resources Board, Elements w ithdrawn from 2003 Submittal to U.S. EPA of the California South Coast Air Quality,” enclosure to letter, James Goldstene, ARB to Wayne Nastri, February 13 2008.

With regard to the legal authority of Ja mes Goldstene to withdraw a portion of the submission and whether we have the authority to act on portions of a submission that have been withdrawn, we refer the commenter to our responses to a nearly identical comment in the final
action on the 2003 South Coast SIP and 2003 State Stra tegy as it relates to the South Coast. 74 FR 10176, 10177 (March 10, 2009).

Comment: In its November 17, 2008 letter, Earthj ustice comments that EPA cannot approve the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) in the 2 004 SIP because the attainment demonstration is not approvable.

Response: We did not act on the MVEB in the 2004 SIP because they became obsolete when we
found the MVEB in area’s 8-hour ozone standa rd plan (the 2007 Ozone Plan) adequate on January 22, 2009. 46 

### Under our transportation conformity regulations, 8-hour ozone MVEBs replace existing 1-hour ozone MVEBs once the 8- hour ozone budgets are f ound adequate or are approved. See 40 CFR 93.109(e)(1) and (2). See 74 FR at 33946, ftn. 28. See also, 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004) and memorandum from Robert J. Meyers, Ac ting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation to Regional Administ rators, “Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit on our Petition for Rehearing of the Phase 1 Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,” June 15, 2007.

Comment: Earthjustice argues that EPA has “oppor tunity to be proactive in developing a plan that addresses the impending failure [of the SJ V area] to attain” and should immediately start working on a federal implementation plan that includes not only elements missing from the

46 See Letter, Deborah Jordan, EPA to James Goldstene, ARB, “Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8- hour Ozone Rate of Progress and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets” and 74 FR 4032 (January 22, 2009).Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 135

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### SJVAPCD’s extreme area plan but also any a dditional measures that will be required upon a
failure to attain such as the CAA section 185 fee requirement. It asserts that the curr ent version
of the District’s CAA section 185 fee rule is not adequate for EPA to implement because it requires the District to update and provide a corrected invent ory for the attainment year. Earthjustice also states that EP A should initiate sanction clocks.

Response: CAA section 179(a) provides that sanc tion clocks are started under these four circumstances: 1) EPA has made a finding of fa ilure to submit for a CAA-required element, 2) EPA has made an incompleteness finding on a submittal of a CAA-required element, 3) EPA has disapproved a CAA-required element, or EPA has found that a SIP is not being implemented. CAA section 110(c) authorizes EPA to promulga te a FIP for a CAA-required element under the
first three circumstances when EPA has not approved a State-submitted correction.

EPA has not disapproved any required elem ent of the SJV 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration or has found that th e State has failed to submit or submitted an incomplete 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration. Therefore, no sanctions or FI P clock has been triggered.

We note that we have several sanctions and FIP clocks running for the SJV, resulting from the disapprovals of RACT demonstrations for Rule 4570 – Confined Animal Facilities, Rule 4605 – Aerospace Assembly and Component Ma nufacturing Operations, and others and for our partial disapproval of Rule 3170 – Federally Mandate Ozone Nonattainment Fee. See “Revisions to the California State Implemen tation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District” Final Rule (Rule 457 0), as signed December 11, 2009; “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District” Final Rule (Rule 3170), as signed Dece mber 11, 2009; and “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaq uin Valley Air Pollution Control District,” Final Rule (Rules 4401, 4605, 4684) as signed December 3, 2009.

Because our proposal on the 2004 1-hour ozone plan did not address SJVAPCD’s section 185 rule, the comments on its adequacy are not germ ane. In a separate action, we approved in part and disapproved in part SJVAPCD’s section 185 rule. See “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District” Final Rule (Rule 3170), as signed December 11, 2009. We proposed this action at 74 FR 33950 (July 14, 2009). We note that should EPA be required to implement a section 185 program in the place of the District, EPA would do so pursuant to a federal program and not the District’s

program.

Comment: Earthjustice states that failure of the SJV nonattainment area to attain 1-hour ozone standard will trigger the consequences outlined in section 179(d), including the requirement to
revise the SIP to include all measures that can feasibly be implemented.

Response: EPA’s proposal did not a ddress, either directly or indirectly, the potential consequences of the SJV nonattainment area’s failu re to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its applicable deadline. None of EPA’s conclusions regarding the approvability of the 2004 SJV 1- hour ozone plan rely upon or are affected in anyway by the poten tial consequences of the SJVTechnical Support Document – December 11, 2009 San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 136

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

### failing to attain the revoked 1-hour ozone standard by its applicable deadline. Therefore, this comment is not germane and no EPA response is required on the alleged consequences of any
such future failure.